Dakota County, Minnesota Comprehensive Plan

Transportation DC2040

Park and Greenways

Land Use and Natural Resources

Adopted June 18, 2019 Dakota County Board of Commissioners Mike Slavik District 1 Kathleen Gaylord District 2 Thomas Egan District 3 Joe Atkins District 4 Liz Workman District 5 Mary Liz Holberg District 6 Chris Gerlach District 7

Dakota County Planning Commission Michael Greco District 1 Jerry Rich District 1 Lori Hansen District 2 Timothy Tabor District 2 Jill Smith District 3 Greg Oxley District 3 Amy Hunting District 4 Barry Graham District 4 Ram Singh District 5 Christopher Ross District 5 Nate Reitz District 6 James Guttmann District 6 Anthony Nelson District 7 Donald Post District 7

Prepared By: Dakota County Office of Planning Dakota County Environmental Resources Dakota County Parks Dakota County Transportation Dakota County Physical Development Administration Dakota County Office of Performance Management Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. SEH, Inc.

Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

DRAFT DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DC2040 CONTENTS DC2040 Executive Summary ...... i Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 DC 2040 Plan Organization ...... 1 Plan Purpose ...... 1 Dakota County Planning Guidance ...... 2 Comprehensive Plan Process Overview ...... 3 Chapter 2: County Demographics ...... 5 Growth and Demographics in Dakota County ...... 5 Chapter 3: Transportation ...... 11 Purpose and Background ...... 11 County Planning Guidance ...... 11 Transportation System Vision ...... 11 Guiding Principles for Transportation ...... 11 Dakota County Transportation System ...... 15 Integration of Modes ...... 30 Transit Planning and Operations...... 30 Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel ...... 42 Emerging Technologies and Transportation ...... 52 Other Modes ...... 53 Contributing Planning Activities ...... 60 Implementation ...... 66 Chapter 4: Park System ...... 67 Purpose and Background ...... 67 County Plan Guidance ...... 67 Park System Goals and Objectives ...... 69 Existing Dakota County Parks and Greenways ...... 70 Other Outdoor Recreation Opportunities ...... 83 Plans Completed Since 2008 ...... 88 Implementation ...... 88 Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources ...... 89 Purpose and Background ...... 89 Land Use and Official Controls ...... 89 Natural Resources ...... 102 Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan ...... 125

Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Chapter 6: Implementation ...... 151 Implementation Processes...... 151 CIP Summaries for Transportation, Parks, and Land Conservation ...... 151 Official Controls...... 169 Comprehensive Plan Updates ...... 169 DC 2040 Content Notes ...... 169 Other Related County Plans and Programs ...... 171 Appendix A: Comments on the Draft DC2040 ...... 173 Adjacent and Affected Jurisdictions...... 173 Public Comments Received on the Draft DC2040...... 189 Appendix B: Plan Submittal and Approval Documents ...... 193 Draft Plan Submittal ...... 193 Plan Approval ...... 200 Appendix C: Demographic Forecasts by Transportation Analysis Zones ...... 207

Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

DC2040 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PLAN PURPOSE DC 2040 is Dakota County’s 10-year update of its Comprehensive Plan (Plan) to guide County transportation systems, parks and open space, natural resources, and land planning over the next 20 years to respond to population growth and change. DC2040 builds on the strong foundation provided by Dakota County’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan (DC2030), although DC2040 is more closely focused on Dakota County’s core roles in transportation, parks, and protection of land and natural resources. Content in this plan is intended to meet Metropolitan Council long-range planning requirements for specific physical systems and statutory requirements for providing a framework for County Official Controls (ordinances) related to land and development.

DEMOGRAPHIC HIGHLIGHTS AND TRENDS Dakota County Population Growth and Demographics Projections*: 1970-2040 • The County will add 100,000 new residents between Source: Metropolitan Council 2016 and 2040 600,000 • Seniors will become a larger share of the population 500,000 • Despite having a larger population, the total number 400,000 of children in Dakota County is projected to remain 300,000 relatively stable through 2035, and increase thereafter 200,000 100,000 0 Trends • Dakota County’s youngest suburbs are still growing, while its older suburbs are redeveloping in areas

• Demand for highway expansion continues, along with

the need for transit and multimodal transportation Hydric Soils and Existing Wetlands • Groundwater quantity and quality are threatened • Most of the County’s wetlands have been drained, but many could be restored to improve water quality • Invasive species threaten ecosystems

WHAT’S NEW IN THE PLAN • Recent major transportation studies • Pedestrian-bicycle facility evaluation • County Park Conservation Areas (new unit type) • Park and conservation easement stewardship • More volunteer opportunities in Parks • Improved services for Parks visitors • Wetland restoration initiative • Updating groundwater protection tools (programs, plans, studies, or ordinances) • Updating the Land Conservation Program Guidelines (former Farmland and Natural Areas Plan) • New Mississippi Critical Area rules and policies

Executive Summary – Page i Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS The Board of Commissioners goals set a vision for Dakota County and provided direction for DC2040:

A great place to live Dakota County strives to be a welcoming place where all people are safe, have opportunities to thrive, and enjoy a high lifelong quality of life.

A healthy environment with quality natural areas Dakota County protects and maintains natural resources for the health and enjoyment of current and future residents.

A successful place for business and jobs Dakota County fosters business and employment success through modern infrastructure, low taxes, and a prepared, connected workforce.

Excellence in public service Dakota County demonstrates sound stewardship of human and financial resources, communicates and engages with the public, and innovates and collaborates to provide excellent service.

DC2040 GOALS The following system-level goals define the focus of County efforts over the next 20 years.

Transportation 3.1 Limited Resources are directed to the highest priority Highway Expansion Needs needs of the transportation system 3.2 Transit and integration of transportation modes 3.3 Preservation of the existing system 3.4 Management to increase transportation system efficiency, improve safety and maximize existing highway capacity 3.5 Replace deficient elements of the system 3.6 Improvement and expansion of transportation Corridors

Park System 4.1 Great Places: Add nature-based or natural resource compatible park recreation and services that people expect and appreciate 4.2 Connected Places: Develop a network of collaboratively operated greenways to link parks and popular destinations 4.3 Protected Places: Protect and manage natural and

cultural resources and green infrastructure in Dakota County 4.4 Build awareness of Parks, inform and engage the public

Executive Summary – Page ii Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Land Use South Creek County Park Conservation Area - Restoration 5.1 Support and encourage orderly development. 5.2 Support land use and transportation options that create places where people can live without an automobile

Natural Resources 5.3 Preserve vital functions of natural systems by strategically and collaboratively improving Dakota County’s green infrastructure

5.4 Conserve and protect natural resources in Dakota County, including air quality, water, soil, productive farmland, minerals (bedrock, sand and gravel aggregates), vegetation, and wildlife 5.5 Sufficient and sustainable high quality water resources 5.6 Sufficient and sustainable high quality water supplies 5.7 Ensure that residents have adequate wastewater disposal where no municipal system is available 5.8 Increase recycling rates toward meeting State targets for Metropolitan counties 5.9 Implement waste abatement project and program planning, implementation, and evaluation to meet Solid Waste Master Plan obligations

Mississippi River Critical Area 5.11 Preserve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, economic, recreational, cultural, and historical values of the Mississippi River corridor within Dakota County and protect its environmentally sensitive areas

View to the Mississippi River from Spring Lake Park Reserve

Executive Summary – Page iii Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

This page intentionally left blank.

Executive Summary – Page iv Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION This version of DC2040 reflects public and agency comments received during the draft plan six-month public review period, April 1 to October 1, 2018.

DC 2040 Plan Organization The Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040, is organized into six chapters:

1. Introduction: Plan purpose, plan guidance, planning process 2. County Trends: demographics 3. Transportation: roads, pedestrian and bicycle networks, transit, freight, and aviation 4. Park System: parks and trail system 5. Land Use and Natural Resources: population forecasts, special resources, and official controls 6. Implementation: priorities and funding to advance the Plan

Plan Purpose DC 2040 is Dakota County’s 10-year update of its Comprehensive Plan (Plan) to guide the County’s transportation systems, parks and open space, water resources, and land planning over the next 20 years, as required by the 1976 Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act. The intent of the Act was to manage regional growth in a more orderly manner that protects investments and resources, based on interagency coordination and careful planning.

The Dakota County Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with Thrive MSP 2040, the Regional vision and policy document adopted by the Metropolitan Council in 2014. Thrive MSP 2040 sets forth a charge of planning a prosperous, equitable, and livable region for today and generations to come, with the following desired outcomes: • Stewardship • Prosperity • Equity • Livability • Sustainability

The Council identified key principles underlying Thrive MSP 2040: Integration, Collaboration, and Accountability. Thrive MSP 2040 outlines strategies regarding land use, organized around seven policies:

1. Orderly and Efficient Land Use — ensuring land uses and development occurs in a responsible manner, with regards to private and public investments. [The Counties of Hennepin, Ramsey, and Dakota are not required to have a land use chapter, although Dakota County administers shoreland and floodplain zoning in the unincorporated areas of the County.] 2. Natural Resources Protection — working to protect and enhance natural resources in the region to ensure they continue to serve the public. 3. Water Sustainability — conserving and improving the region’s water quality and quantity to preserve availability of water resources. 4. Housing Affordability and Choice — promoting safe and affordable housing for all people, across a range of ages and income levels. [This section is not required in Dakota County’s Plan.]

Chapter 1: Introduction, Page 1 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

5. Access, Mobility, and Transportation Choice — strengthening transportation across modes to improve choice and reliability. 6. Economic Competitiveness — foster land uses that connect business with goods, employees, and customers. [This is an optional section not required in Dakota County’s Plan.] 7. Building in Resilience — promote land use patterns that enhance resilience in the region, especially with regard to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. [This is an optional section not required in Dakota County’s Plan.]

Dakota County Planning Guidance DC2040 was guided by the Dakota County Board’s Strategic Goals, which define a desired future for Dakota County:

DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD STRATEGIC GOALS The Strategic Plan Goals reflect the Board of Commissioners' vision for Dakota County and are meant to guide the work of the County and to provide direction and context for the work of staff:

A great place to live Dakota County strives to be a welcoming place where all people are safe, have opportunities to thrive, and enjoy a high lifelong quality of life.

A healthy environment with quality natural areas Dakota County protects and maintains natural resources for the health and enjoyment of current and future residents.

A successful place for business and jobs Dakota County fosters business and employment success through modern infrastructure, low taxes, and a prepared, connected workforce.

Excellence in public service Dakota County demonstrates sound stewardship of human and financial resources, communicates and engages with the public, and innovates and collaborates to provide excellent service.

Dakota County maintains key community indicators and performance measures associated with the Strategic Plan Goals to help monitor trends and evaluate the performance of services that it provides.

Chapter 1: Introduction, Page 2 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Comprehensive Plan Process Overview PLAN DEVELOPMENT DC2040 was prepared in four phases:

1. Organize the effort around requirements 2. Research trends and interests 3. Update the existing Plan 4. Review, revise, and adopt the new Plan

A Stakeholder and Public Engagement Plan guided engagement efforts throughout the process.

Research Phase: Inform and Listen 1. Communicate the plan’s purpose and goals, process, and schedule 2. Provide an opportunity for all to express ideas on the existing Plan vision and topics 3. Determine if and where changes are warranted 4. Coordinate with cities and agencies

Activities: • Statistically valid resident survey on comprehensive plan topics in early 2017 • Project web site • Online version of residential survey • Vision summits with communities and key agencies • Small stakeholder group meetings • Intercept booth at well-attended events: County Fair, city concerts, city markets • Planning Commission and County Board presentations and discussion

Plan Update Phase: Present Ideas and Collaborate 1. Present potential changes to the comprehensive plan based on input and analysis 2. Collaborate with interested stakeholders in refining changes

Activities: • Web information on public and agency comments and ideas and potential changes to the Plan. • Vision summit follow-up on possible Plan changes with communities and key agencies • Follow-up small stakeholder group meetings on possible Plan changes • Public open house and intercept event to engage the general public on possible Plan changes • Planning Commission and County Board presentations and discussion of possible Plan changes

Draft Plan Review: Seek Discussion and Comments 1. Share the draft plan 2. Provide discussion opportunities

Activities: • Draft Plan posted on web site with an online survey, notice to adjacent/affected jurisdictions • Pop-up events or intercepts with information on the draft Plan (see Appendix A) • Comment summary (see Appendix A) and plan revisions • Public hearing on November 27, 2018 • County Board direction to submit the Plan to Metropolitan Council for review and approval

Chapter 1: Introduction, Page 3 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 1: Introduction, Page 4 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

CHAPTER 2: COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS Growth and Demographics in Dakota County Dakota County has continued to grow over the past decade, and its comparatively young and affluent population has become more similar to the rest of the Twin Cities, with a growing number of seniors and greater diversity. As growth, development, and demographic changes continue, the County considers potential implications for the services it provides. POPULATION GROWTH Dakota County gained close to 20,000 residents between 2010 and 2016, and is Figure 2.1: Dakota County Population Growth and projected to add roughly 100,000 new Projections*: 1970-2040 residents between 2016 and 2040. The Source: Metropolitan Council population of suburban metro area 600,000 counties continues to increase, although at a slower rate than the previous decade. The 500,000 Metropolitan Council projects that Dakota County’s population will reach 514,050 in 2040. 400,000

In 2015, Dakota County had an estimated 300,000 158,944 households. Changes in household composition continued to follow trends of 200,000 recent decades: single-person households (both under and over 65) increased, as did households headed by single females with 100,000 children, while married couple households with children decreased. Household growth 0 does not always track parallel to total 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020* 2030* 2040* population growth because average household size has continued to decline, from 2.71 people per household in 2000 to 2.59 in 2015.

Changes in household composition have implications for housing preferences and markets. As single- person households increase, demand for more multifamily housing units is likely to rise. Housing accessibility becomes more important as the senior population continues to increase. As family sizes decline, school enrollments can be affected. While the total population of the County is expected to increase, the number of school age children is projected to remain stable through 2035 and increase thereafter. Figure 2.2: Population over 65: MEDIAN AGE 2020, 2030, and 2040 An aging population — Twenty-five years from now, Source: Metropolitan Council Dakota County’s population overall will include a 150000 larger percentage of seniors. Age cohorts between five and 20 years old and between 40 and 55 years 100000 old are expected to become smaller, while cohorts 50000 between 20 and 45 and over 55 are expected to grow. 0 2020 2030 2040

Chapter 2: County Demographics, Page 5 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Median population age has increased from 30.25 years in 1990 to 33.7 years in 2000, 35.7 years in 2006, and 37.5 in 2015. Current age projections for Dakota County and other counties across the nation predict substantial increases in the population of senior citizens as the baby boom generation ages.

As of 2013, the U.S. workforce had 2.8 workers for every Social Security beneficiary. This ratio dropped from over 100 workers per retiree in 1940 to five workers per retiree in 1960, steadily declining to numbers less than 3 workers per retiree since 2010. A declining ratio of younger people results in an increasing burden on the workforce for funding Social Security, Medicare and other services. This decline also has implications for the capacity of a proportionally smaller workforce in health and supportive care positions to care for a greater number of seniors. Additional implications for the increasing senior population in Dakota County include a need for more accessible housing and more services for transportation, health care, and household needs (such as shopping and maintenance).

Table 2.1 Projected Growth in Population over Age 65 in Dakota County 2020 2030 2040 Population over Age 65 60,948 89,998 103,535 Total Population 436,570 475,370 514,650 Percent over age 65 14.0% 18.9% 20.1% Source: Metropolitan Council

ETHNIC AND RACIAL DIVERSITY Dakota County’s population has become more diverse, including both native and foreign-born residents. In 2015, more than 64,000 people in Dakota County, or about 16 percent of the population, identified themselves as members of a racial or ethnic group other than White (including those identifying as White and another racial category). For those identifying as a single racial category other than White, the largest population of color in the County is African American (5.2 percent), followed by Asian (4.6 percent). In addition, over six percent of residents in 2015 identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino, an ethnic grouping that includes multiple races. Dakota County’s foreign-born population increased to almost nine percent of the total county population in 2015.

Table 2.2. Racial Characteristics of Dakota County, 2015 Estimates White 84.1% Black or African American 5.2% American Indian and Alaska Native 0.3% Asian 4.6% Some other race 2.7% Two or more races 3.1% Source: US Census, American Community Survey 2015

Dakota County will continue growing more diverse in coming decades. According to the Minnesota Demographic Center, populations of color in Dakota County will reach more than 27 percent of the total population by 2035. Diversity among children in Dakota County is increasing at a faster rate than for the

Chapter 2: County Demographics, Page 6 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 population as a whole. In the 2014–2015 school year, 73,119 students were enrolled in County K–12 schools. Of those, 22,143 (or 30%) students were racial or ethnic minorities. According to the Minnesota Department of Education, 15.5 percent of students enrolled in Dakota County public K–12 schools during the 2016–2017 school year spoke a language other than English at home, representing 125 different languages. The top five non-English languages spoken in the homes of Dakota County K–12 students are Spanish, Somali, Vietnamese, Russian and Hmong. Increasing diversity among the student population is important to monitor, because of its implications for school curriculum and meeting student needs.

EDUCATION Educational attainment is an indicator of future economic success in the trained workforce of local jurisdictions. Students who do not complete high school are more likely to live in poverty, earn less over a lifetime, and experience longer and/or more frequent periods of unemployment.

The estimated percentage of the Dakota County population with a bachelor’s or graduate degree increased to 41 percent in 2015, a gain from the 35 percent reported in the 2000 Census. The rest of the County’s 2015 educational attainment is broken down by the following: five percent have less than a high school education, 21 percent are high school graduates or equivalent, and the remaining 33 percent either have some college or an associate’s degree.

Figure 2.3. Educational Attainment in Dakota County, Population 25 yrs+ Source: U.S. Census

Less than 9th grade

9th to 12th grade, no diploma

High school graduate

Some college, no degree

Associate's degree

Bachelor's degree

Graduate or professional degree

Graduate or 9th to 12th Bachelor's Associate's Some college, High school Less than 9th professional grade, no degree degree no degree graduate grade degree diploma 2000 9% 26% 9% 26% 24% 4% 2% 2015 12% 28% 11% 21% 22% 3% 2%

Chapter 2: County Demographics, Page 7 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

INCOME Residential income is the amount of money people earn in a year and is a good measure of an area’s vitality. Measuring income gives clues to the quality of life residents enjoy as well as the possibility of attracting new businesses and development.

Dakota County’s median household income in 2016 was estimated to be $78,662, which means half of households earned less than that amount and half earned more. Median household income increased by about 27 percent from 2000 ($61,863), although when adjusted for inflation to 2016 dollars, the 2000 income would be $86,826, or about 9.4 percent more than in 2016. The following chart shows the impacts of the Recession and that most counties, with the exception of Dakota, have approached real income levels comparable to pre-Recession levels.

Figure 2.4: Median Household Adjusted for Inflation (2016 Dollars) Source: American Community Survey 2016 $100,000

$80,000 2007 $60,000 2010 $40,000 2013 $20,000 2016

$0 Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington

Dakota County’s 2015 median household income is 10 percent higher than the Twin Cities Metro Area as a whole ($68,778), and 23 percent higher than the statewide median household income ($61,492). Nonetheless, Dakota County has seen an increase in income disparity in recent years: households at the top and bottom of the income spectrum have increased over the past 15 years, while the income levels in the middle have declined. Lower- and moderate-income families are not experiencing the same economic improvement as are higher-income families. Dakota County’s poverty rate increased from 3.6 percent in 2000, to 7.3 percent in 2015. LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT

Figure 2.5. Dakota County Household Income in 2000 and 2015 Source: U.S. Census, 2011-2015 ACS, not adjusted for inflation 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 2000 10,000 2015 5,000 0 Less than $10,000 to $15,000 to $25,000 to $35,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $10,000 $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 to to or more $149,999 $199,999

Chapter 2: County Demographics, Page 8 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

The size of the labor force has consistently grown in Dakota County, mirroring population growth. The 2016 US Census American Community Survey estimates the County’s labor force (age 16 to 64) at about 244,656, or about eight percent of Minnesota’s entire labor force. The annual growth rate of the County’s labor force mostly outpaces the state’s annual labor force growth rate, although the growth rate is beginning to slow. This slowing may be due to the changing age demographics of the County. As the County’s median age increases with more people leaving the labor force, fewer young people are moving in to fill the gaps. Growth in the labor force will continue to decline without in-migration of younger people.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of women in the labor force continues to increase in Dakota County, from 105,496 in 2006 to 114,170 in 2016, although women as a percentage of the labor force remained steady over this timeframe at about 48.5 percent. The percentage of working–age men who worked at all in the previous year dropped slightly between 2006 and 2016, going from 91.7 percent to 91.0 percent. The percentage of women who worked at all in the previous year similarly dropped between 2006 and 2016, going from 85.5 percent to 84.9 percent.

In 2016, five industries (retail, manufacturing, educational-health care-social assistance, professional- scientific-management-administrative-waste management, and finance-insurance-real estate- rental/leasing) employed 67 percent (157,541) of the total work force in Dakota County. “Educational services, health care, and social assistance,” is the largest industry sector in the county, employing 50,927 people (26.2%), a change from retail in 2006.

The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development projects professions in the healthcare and social assistance field will have the highest rate of growth in the next several years, likely an effect of an aging population and the fact that people are living longer.

HEALTH SNAPSHOT Chronic and sometimes preventable diseases, in addition to accidental injuries and suicide, continue to be a leading cause of death and disability in Dakota County, Minnesota, and the United States. The ten leading causes of death in Dakota County in 2016 are shown in the following table:

Table 2.3: Leading Causes of Death in Dakota County Rank Cause Number 1 Cancer 655 2 Heart disease 388 3 Unintentional injury 173 4 Chronic lower respiratory disease 142 5 Alzheimer’s disease 133 6 Stroke 133 7 Diabetes 79 8 Suicide 48 9 Parkinson’s disease 43 10 Liver disease and cirrhosis 33 Minnesota Department of Health

Chapter 2: County Demographics, Page 9 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Other Health Trends • Although not among the top ten causes of death, opioid overdose deaths in Dakota County have steadily increased since 2000, reaching 26 in 2016 and totaling 272 since 2000, the third highest total among counties in the state. (Minnesota Department of Health) • Low-weight births increased from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 4.5 percent in 2015, compared to 6.5 percent statewide and 8.1 percent nationwide. (Minnesota Department of Health) • Adults age 20 and older who are medically obese in Dakota County in 2013 was 26.6 percent, higher than the 25.5 statewide figure, but lower than the nationwide figure of 29.4 percent. (2013, Wilder Research) • Adults age 20 and older with diabetes was 6.9 percent in 2013, compared to 7.4 percent statewide and 9.7 percent nationwide. (Wilder Research) • Psychiatric hospital admissions for Dakota County residents age 14 and older in 2015 was 0.74 percent, slightly higher than the statewide figure of 0.70 percent. (Wilder Research)

The physical environment strongly influences the health of Dakota County residents. Similarly, the health and vitality of Dakota County depends on that of its people. The built environment contributes to community health problems yet also offers solutions to improving health. Social determinants of health include income, education, employment, housing, transportation, stress levels, healthy food, the ability to be physically active, exposure to environmental hazards, and availability of early learning opportunities. These factors can interact to increase or decrease risk for major diseases such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and some forms of cancer.

Chapter 2: County Demographics, Page 10 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

CHAPTER 3: TRANSPORTATION

Purpose and Background The Transportation Chapter of the Dakota County Comprehensive Plan is a document used by Dakota County, its partners and residents as a guide to maintain and improve the County’s transportation system through 2040 and support land use goals and objectives. It is developed in the context of regional, state and national transportation planning and funding policies and guidelines. This Chapter is part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan update, and responds to guidance and direction provided by the Met Council to all counties and municipalities in the seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan area.

This Transportation Chapter is an abridged version of the County’s full Transportation Plan, which is a separate and more detailed plan document that was last updated in 2012. The full Dakota County Transportation Plan is scheduled to be updated in 2019 to reflect land use changes and development in the cities’ 2040 Comprehensive Plans, and will include updated Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) data and the County transportation model forecasts. This Transportation Chapter of DC2040 does not supersede the full Transportation Plan, but may include updated information for clarity and accuracy.

County Planning Guidance This chapter was guided by goals and principles that define a desired transportation system for Dakota County:

Dakota County Transportation Vision Guiding Principles for Transportation

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM VISION The vision for the transportation system in Dakota County is the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Dakota County envisions the transportation system as a critical element of the quality of life for its citizens. Transportation systems, both highway and transit, must safely, efficiently and effectively allow citizens to travel to work and to conduct their personal lives. Transportation systems must further provide for the efficient movement of goods to markets to support the county’s economic vitality. Multiple transportation options should work in coordination to minimize congestion. Additionally, transportation decisions should carefully consider and reflect environmental and community concerns.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR TRANSPORTATION This Transportation Chapter includes ten overarching principles that apply to all Transportation Plan goals. These include the five guiding principles identified in DC2040 and five principles specific to transportation. All of these principles together guide transportation policies and strategies, and help in forming the basis for decision-making and priority determination. This chapter incorporates these principles into all aspects of transportation system development and operation. Each principle is supported by strategies and policies to implement the principle objective. These principles are:

• Sustainability — This principle supports living comfortably in a friendly, clean and healthy community and growing without placing environmental, economic and social burdens on current and future generations. Sustainable transportation is characterized by a transportation system that

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 11 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

links people to activity centers through modes of transportation that reduce our use of natural resources and energy. • Connectedness — This principle refers to land use patterns and multimodal transportation networks that allow people to easily move between neighborhoods, providing jobs near housing, convenient shopping and services. • Collaboration — This principle supports coordinating the efforts of public agencies and private entities toward maximizing transportation infrastructure, services and resources. Transportation corridors and transit services should provide access and mobility to business and residential communities. Collaboration is especially important as resources cannot keep pace with increasing transportation needs. Dakota County also will coordinate with transportation partners in the region in the monitoring, evaluation, and implementation of technology-driven changes to transportation systems. • Economic Vitality — This principle identifies transportation and technology infrastructure playing a large role in attracting high-paying employers in growth industries that are situated to help the region compete nationally and internationally. Interrelationships between transportation investments, telecommunication systems, and other public infrastructure are recognized and coordinated with economic development goals. • Growing and Nurturing People — This principle refers to providing a variety of transportation choices to meet the needs of people of all ages, abilities, incomes and backgrounds. A safe and efficient transportation system exists to provide opportunities for people to accommodate a positive quality of life. • Transportation Safety and Standards — Safety is a critical factor underlying in all transportation services and projects provided by Dakota County. Safety of the traveling public is the priority on the County transportation system. This principle refers to system development and operations as they pertain to all goals. The most notable activities are relevant to system design including design standards, traffic control devices, shoulders, trails, speed limits, and intersection lighting with consideration of all modes of transportation. • Transportation Planning — Transportation planning activities include the development of plans and studies that identify potential solutions to transportation issues. A travel demand model is used to forecast future traffic projections to assist with transportation plans and studies. Dakota County participates with state, regional and local jurisdictions in transportation planning activities. Transportation planning activities also include the continual monitoring of land use development integration with the county transportation system. Planning activities also include identification of methods to integrate transit and other transportation modes within the transportation system. Dakota County will monitor technological innovations that will have impact on transportation and infrastructure, and consider system changes when it makes sense. • Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts — This principle identifies activities that result in avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating impacts associated with the transportation system. Also identified are ways to address air pollution, erosion, noise, wetlands, storm sewers, and waste management within the transportation system. Federal and state requirements pertaining to this principle will be followed. In recent years, the importance of transportation design that is sensitive to the surrounding environment has received increasing attention. The growing emphasis on aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sensitive projects has been exhibited at both the federal and state level through funding and design policies. Local governments are increasingly interested in inclusion of aesthetic elements with transportation improvements. Limited investment of

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 12 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

transportation funds is supported to enhance the aesthetic character of highway corridors on major transportation improvement projects. • Public and Agency Involvement — This principle identifies activities resulting in opportunities for residents and agencies to contribute to transportation plans, studies and projects. Examples include open houses, workshops, surveys, publications, web site information, and e-mail. In addition, staff will frequently meet with staff from local county communities and MnDOT regarding transportation planning documents, studies, and projects. Key supporting actions include monthly participation at Coalition of Northern Dakota Cities (CONDAC) meetings, MnDOT coordination meetings, planning commission meetings and township officers meetings as needed; conducting open houses and public information meetings on studies and projects; web site information; annual resident surveys; and the Adopt-a-Highway program. • Context-Sensitive Design — The context-sensitive design principle refers to roadway standards and development practices that are flexible and sensitive to community values and allows roadway design decisions to better balance economic, social and environmental objectives. Context varies by road segment, but can generally be described as rural, suburban and urban. Higher attention should be paid to more intense areas where higher pedestrian and bicyclist use is expected or desired. In recent years, the importance of transportation design that is sensitive to the surrounding environment and roadway users has received increasing attention. The growing emphasis on community-supportive, environmentally sensitive and multi-modal roadway projects has been exhibited at the federal and state level through funding and design policies. Local governments also have asked for transportation systems that are less disruptive to the adjacent area and are welcoming to all users. Local government input and cooperation will be a major component in the development of context-sensitive design. • Complete Streets — Complete Streets is an approach to road planning and design that evaluates and balances the needs, safety, accessibility, and usability of all transportation users to preserve safety and efficiency for all modes. Minnesota Statutes §174.75 identifies complete streets as the planning, scoping, design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of roads in order to reasonably address the safety and accessibility needs of motorists, pedestrians, transit users and vehicles, bicyclists, and commercial and emergency vehicles moving along and across roads, intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and recognizes that the needs vary in urban, suburban, and rural settings. The County will implement the complete streets approach during transportation project planning, project development, operation, and maintenance activities. This approach helps to maximize the use of county highways and right-of-way to provide a safe, comprehensive and connected multimodal transportation system. Complete Streets implementation is based on, but not limited to, the following: community context, topography, road function, traffic volumes and speed, transit service, freight volumes, and pedestrian and bicyclist demand. Complete Streets implementation options are selected depending on each project’s unique characteristics. The County will implement the complete streets approach in compliance with State Statutes, State Aid Rules and applicable Minnesota Department of Transportation Policy.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 13 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

TRANSPORTATION GOALS Goal 3.1: Limited Resources are Directed to the Highest Priority Needs of the Transportation System The emphasis of this goal is for the County to develop the best transportation system to provide for safe movement of people and goods within financial constraints. The system vision has been developed and implemented in coordination with the state, adjacent counties, cities, townships, and other transportation partners through the goals and policies within this Transportation Plan. This includes directing resources to transportation system priority needs and seeking and acquiring a variety of transportation funding sources to meet the many diverse system needs including transportation projects, operation and maintenance activities. Unmet needs will need to be considered on a case-by- case basis with additional funding beyond anticipated revenue to make investments in some areas. This goal identifies various funding sources available to the County for transportation purposes, along with strategies and policies for use of these resources. Subsequent goal chapters specify how these extremely limited transportation resources will be directed to priority needs of the system. This goal also identifies the staff and fiscal resources anticipated to be necessary to design, build, operate, and maintain the transportation system. These resources were determined based on an analysis of the existing system and future system needs.

Goal 3.2: Transit and Integration of Transportation Modes This goal establishes Dakota County’s role in coordinating and providing direction on the development of infrastructure and services for non-automobile modes of transportation. Rapid population growth and diversified transportation needs have prompted the County to adopt policies and strategies for the development and integration of a comprehensive transit system, bicycle and pedestrian network, and other non-automobile modes for people and freight to maximize the transportation system efficiently. The ongoing facilitation of these modes will contribute to the County’s transportation networks by providing safe, timely, convenient, and efficient connections between communities, activity generators, and employment concentrations.

Goal 3.3: Preservation of the Existing System Dakota County will continue to experience demands for limited resources to meet the transportation needs of the county. The investments to repair the extensive system of roads, bridges, supporting infrastructure and facilities can be expected to continue to increase. Therefore, the investments the County has made in its transportation system must be preserved. Preservation strategies and policies maintain existing transportation system infrastructure in their current condition to serve their current purposes. The County’s overall approach is to maximize the life cycle of transportation system infrastructure and to minimize life cycle costs. The County identifies that the most effective way to protect the transportation system investments is to continually evaluate and maintain the existing system to reduce unnecessary or premature replacement investments while maintaining safety and mobility. This includes continuing evaluation of existing conditions and identification of future needs of the transportation system to maximize infrastructure useful lives.

Goal 3.4: Management to Increase Transportation System Efficiency, Improve Safety and Maximize Existing Highway Capacity This goal aims to enhance the relationship and compatibility between land uses and transportation to assure an efficient and safe transportation system. Management of the system can cost effectively maximize mobility, safety and capacity of the County transportation system. The importance of this goal is to provide for safe travel on the County system with minimal congestion. This goal includes monitoring technological innovations that will have impact on transportation and infrastructure, and considering system changes when it makes sense.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 14 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Goal 3.5: Replace Deficient Elements of the System The emphasis of this goal is to address the transportation system elements that have deteriorated over time. The goal recognizes that even with proactive preservation of system elements replacement eventually becomes the most cost effective approach. Investments are to be made as transportation system elements age and deteriorate to the point where preservation techniques are no longer practical or cost effective. This goal provides measures, strategies and policies aimed at replacement of four important elements of the transportation system – bridges, highways, traffic signals and gravel roads. It also provides current and future estimated investments and measures for replacement of key transportation system elements.

Goal 3.6: Improvement and Expansion of Transportation Corridors This goal directs the County to improve the existing transportation system to address emerging deficiencies to address capacity needs to best provide efficient connections. This goal applies to development of new transportation corridors, lane additions, interchanges and the transit system. The goal identifies current and future estimated expansion needs, defines measures and planned costs of investments, and measures for improvement and expansion of the system.

Dakota County Transportation System The highway system is made up of 322 miles of County State Aid Highways (CSAH) and 96 miles of County roads (CR). This is shown in Figure 3.1. The overall County system consists of 418 centerline miles of which approximately 355 miles (85 percent) are paved and 63 miles (15 percent) have a gravel surface. There are 1063 lane miles in the system. The County system also has 83 bridges, and owns and operates 136 traffic signals.

ROLE OF THE COUNTY HIGHWAY SYSTEM The majority of Dakota County highways fall into the functional classification category of minor arterial. The emphasis of minor arterials is on mobility with limited land access. Providing a balance between mobility and appropriate land accesses is a constant challenge. To ensure mobility continues to be emphasized, local supporting networks are essential to provide access to and from the County highway system and to handle local traffic.

ROLE OF MNDOT TRUNK HIGHWAYS AND LOCAL STREETS MnDOT freeways (such as I-494, I-35E, and I-35W) emphasis mobility for traffic, however, they provide no direct access to adjacent lands. The opposite is true for local residential streets that provide direct driveway access to homes and businesses, but do not work well for longer trips across the County.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 15 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.1: Dakota County Transportation System

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 16 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF HIGHWAYS Functional highway classification is the grouping of highways by the character of the service that they provide. Highways are classified according to the relative importance for providing mobility and access. The assigned classification is determined by the degree to which (1) movement of traffic is encouraged and access to adjacent homes and businesses is discouraged or (2) access is encouraged at the cost of efficiency to the movement of traffic.

Dakota County uses the same highway functional classification designation system as the Metropolitan Council (see Figure 3.2). The following are the definitions of each class the number of County roadway miles in each category. Principal Arterials: connect the region with the other areas in the state or connect metro centers to regional business concentrations. The emphasis is on mobility as opposed to land access. The County has 18 miles of principal arterial highway (represents four percent of the County system). Minor Arterials: provide supplementary connections between regional job concentrations, local center, and freight terminals within the urban area and connect the urban service area to cities and towns inside and outside the region. They also interconnect the rural growth centers to one another. The emphasis is on mobility with land accesses. The County has 213 miles of minor arterial highway (represents 51 percent of the County system). • A-Minor Arterials: include the following four sub-groups - Relievers: provide supplementary capacity for congested parallel principal arterials. - Augmentors: supplement the principal arterial system in more densely developed or congested areas. - Expanders: supplement the principal arterial system in less densely developed or rural areas. - Connectors: provide safe, direct connections between rural centers and to principal arterials in rural areas without adding continuous general purpose land capacity • Collectors: provide connection between neighborhoods and to minor business concentrations. Mobility and land access are equally important. The County has 173 miles of collector roadway (represents 41 percent of the County system). Local Roads: connect streets and land parcels. The primary emphasis is on land access. The County has 14 miles of local roadway (represents four percent of the County system).

Dakota County Principal Arterial Study, 2018: Dakota County evaluated the need for existing and future principal arterials within Dakota County. The need for the study is based on large gaps in principal arterials on the system. Spacing of north-south principal arterials varies from four miles along I-494 in the north to 18 miles along County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 86 in the south. Dakota County does not have another east-west principal arterial south of CSAH 42, a distance of 19 miles. The Principal Arterial Study recommended:

1. Designation of the following County corridors as future principal arterials: a. County State Aid Highway 86 from the west County line to Trunk Highway 52 b. County State Aid Highway 70 from the west County line to County State Aid Highway 23; future County 70 from County State Aid Highway 23 to County State Aid Highway 31; and County State Aid Highway 74 from County State Aid Highway 31 to Trunk Highway 3

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 17 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

c. County State Aid Highway 28 from Trunk Highway 149 to Trunk Highway 55; and existing/future County State Aid Highway 63 from Trunk Highway 55 to I-494 d. County State Aid Highway 23 from County State Aid Highway 86 to County State Aid Highway 42

2. Request for principal arterial designation through the Metropolitan Council’s Transportation Advisory Board process for: a. County State Aid Highway 23 from County State Aid Highway 70 to County State Aid Highway 42 b. County State Aid Highway 70 from I-35 west ramp to County State Aid Highway 23

3. Recognition of the following State Trunk Highways as future principal arterials: a. Trunk Highway 3 from the south County line to Trunk Highway 149 b. Trunk Highway 50 from Trunk Highway 3 to Trunk Highway 61 c. Trunk Highway 61 from Trunk Highway 50 to Trunk Highway 316 d. Trunk Highway 149 from Trunk Highway 3 to Trunk Highway 55

Dakota County adopted the Principal Arterial Study on October 23, 2018.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 18 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.2: Existing Functional Class

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 19 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.2.1: Recommended Future Principal Arterials

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 20 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAYS The County State Aid Highway (CSAH) system is a statewide network of about 30,000 miles of highways under jurisdiction of the 87 Minnesota counties. The county state aid system was devised in the 1950s as a system of county highways that met a set of criteria established by the State. Criteria for CSAH determination focuses mainly on traffic levels, functional classification, and a highway’s role in connecting communities or markets.

COUNTY ROADS County roads generally do not meet the criteria established for the County State Aid Highway System, but still provide transportation functions associated with highways under County jurisdiction. County roads typically carry lower traffic volumes and provide a higher degree of land access than CSAHs.

Table 3.1: County Highway Mileage by Type Miles Miles Miles Lane Paved Gravel Miles County State Aid Highways (CSAH) 322 311 11 871 County Roads (CR) 96 44 52 192 Total 418 355 63 1063

ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES Access guidelines define appropriate access locations on Dakota County highways. Dakota County’s Access Guidelines are consistent with MnDOT’s Access Guidelines for Principal Arterials. The intention of the Guidelines is to ensure that County roadways help provide a transportation system that minimizes potential safety issues while maximizing system efficiency. The Guidelines are summarized in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Dakota County Access Guidelines (Spacing and Configuration) Projected 2030 Posted or Full Movement Partial Movement Road Type (A) Average Daily Design Speed Intersection Intersection (B) Traffic Principal Arterial (and Future All All ½ mile ¼ mile (C) Principal Arterial) All > 35,000 ½ mile ¼ mile (C) Divided Highway All < 35,000 ¼ mile ⅛ mile (≤ 40 mph) All ⅛ mile N/A Undivided Highway (≥ 45 mph) > 1,500 ¼ mile N/A (≥ 45 mph) < 1,500 Allowed per (D) N/A

(A) Road type refers to the anticipated future roadway cross-section and functional classification.

(B) Partial Movement intersections do not allow left turns from the minor street to the major street or movements straight across the major street. Movements that are allowed will be based on engineering study.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 21 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

(C) Right-in/right-out access may be permitted at approximately ⅛ mile for public or private (See Note #3) streets if the County determines the access improves the overall safety and/or efficiency of the transportation system.

(D) Private street or driveway access requests will be considered based on engineering judgment and the following factors: location, distance from other driveways and intersections, alignment with other access points, easement/access rights that allow widespread usage and system connectivity, the potential to combine accesses, visibility, adjacent land use, and other operational/safety.

N/A Not Applicable to undivided roadway segments.

Access Spacing Notes: 1. These are minimum access spacing guidelines. The County may require accesses be spaced at distances greater than minimums considering conditions specific to any County highway segment.

2. Some County roadways provide full movement access spacing of ½ mile, as show on the following Access Spacing Map (Figure 3.3). Considerations include regional transitways, adopted studies, principal arterials, system continuity and projected ADT > 35,000.

3. Access to County roadways is typically provided through public street connections. Private access will be considered along the County roadway system based on engineering assessment of the function and use of the private access point in consideration of the spacing criteria.

4. Specific corridor access plans or project designs developed through a public process and adopted by the County Board shall supersede these guidelines.

5. Medians may be added or median openings may be removed or modified at any time by the County to address safety and/or operational issues identified through engineering review.

6. Where there is opportunity for access on more than one public roadway, access shall be provided from the lower-function roadway, unless deemed impractical by the County. To support the objectives of system efficiency and connectivity, access to the higher-function County roadway may be allowed in addition to the lower-function roadway, provided there is adequate distance to accommodate access based on these access guidelines.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 22 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.3: Access Spacing

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 23 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

HIGHWAY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS The following maps address Met Council requirements for describing the existing highway system and planned system improvements within Dakota County: • Existing Traffic Volumes (Figure 3.4) shows existing traffic volumes on the state and county highway system. • Projected Traffic Volumes (Figure 3.5) shows projected 2040 traffic volumes for all County Principal and A-Minor Arterials based on estimates originally used for the previous Comprehensive Plan update for the year 2030. Because the County employs a land use-based traffic projection system and new development/growth in the County in the previous decade was lower than anticipated due to the Recession, traffic volumes have not increased as initially forecast. As a result, the County generally considers the 2030 forecast volumes as the best estimates at this time for County roads in 2040. Adjustments have been made for areas where studies have yielded better information. Use of the 2030 figures as the interim 2040 estimate for County roadways was discussed with staff at the Metropolitan Council. Note that Figure 3.5 uses the Council’s regional projections for highways under State jurisdiction. The County will be updating its full Transportation Plan in 2019, and will update its Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data and forecast model incorporating land use changes identified in city 2040 comprehensive plans. This chapter also will be updated as needed. The table of 2020, 2030, and 2040 population, household, and job forecasts by TAZ included as Appendix C of this document was assembled from city and township comprehensive plans in early 2019. This table is a placeholder until the County’s transportation model update and full Transportation Plan update are completed. The County will work with the cities and the Metropolitan Council to coordinate the forecasts to be consistent with local and regional plans. Appendix C will also be updated at that time. • Number of Lanes – Principal and A-Minor Arterials (Figure 3.6) shows the existing number of lanes on Principal and A-Minor Arterial highways. • Future County Expansion Needs (Figure 3.7) depicts roadway expansion needs based on 2040 projections and current roadway capacities. Roadway capacities are based on general average daily traffic thresholds. Roadway improvement designs will ultimately be based on more detailed safety and operational analyses specific to each roadway segment. The identified projects may include future right-of-way needs to meet these general widths and the actual acquisition needs in individual corridors will be identified in the project design process. • Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan (TPP): Proposed Regional Highway Investments (Figure 3.8) illustrates proposed Regional highway investments, under the Current Revenue Scenario in the current TPP. • Future State Trunk Highways Expansion Needs: Some needs have been identified in County studies (one example is the Regional Roadway System Visioning Study), but the County has not conducted a full assessment of State highway system needs in Dakota County like has been done with the County system. This is planned to be done as part of the Dakota County Transportation Plan update process in 2019.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 24 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.4: Existing Traffic Volumes

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 25 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.5: Projected 2040 Traffic Volumes

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 26 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.6: Number of Lanes – Principal and A-Minor Arterials

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 27 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.7: Future County Expansion Needs

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 28 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.8: Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan: Proposed Regional Highway Investments

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 29 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Integration of Modes Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes provide safe, timely, and efficient connections between communities, activity generators, and employment centers. Facilities for these modes in the County include: • Four transit centers located in Apple Valley (one), Burnsville (one) and Eagan (two) • 12 park and ride lots served by transit within the County capable of accommodating approximately 5,500 vehicles combined • Five park and pool lots • 12 miles of METRO Red Line bus shoulder lane on Cedar Avenue (seven miles northbound, five miles southbound) • Two miles of bus shoulder lane in the northbound direction of I-35E • Six miles of HOV lane on I-35W (4.3 miles northbound, 1.3 miles southbound) • Four transitways planned or under construction (METRO Red Line, METRO Orange Line, Red Rock Transitway and Robert Street Transitway) • 187 miles of paved shoulders on County roads • 403 miles of street-adjacent multi-use trails, with 163 miles within County right-of-way (ROW) • 234 miles of off-street multi-use trails (not road aligned), with 32 miles within County ROW • 690 miles of sidewalks, with 50 miles within County ROW • Funding with the Transportation CIP to fill gaps in the County trail system in partnership with cities

Transit Planning and Operations Sustained population growth, changes in population characteristics, and variety of development patterns have encouraged Dakota County and its partners to consider improved transit opportunities that can meet needs of residents and employees in the County and anticipate future demands.

Transit Market Area designations serve as general guidance to local service providers in their service planning activities. Dakota County includes transit market areas 2, 3, 4 and 5, as shown in Figure 3.9. Fully developed urban and suburban areas in the county are largely within areas 2 and 3 where all day local service is appropriate. Market areas 3 and 4 contain lower density, predominantly residential development where express bus service to serve commuting needs to the downtowns is a primary service need. Market area 5, where development intensity is very low, is generally best served by public dial-a-ride service. Hastings is a freestanding town center, with potential for local service within the city.

Table 3.4: Transit Market Areas in Dakota County Transit Market Area Cities and Townships 2 South St. Paul, West St. Paul 2 (emerging) Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan 3 Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Rosemount, South St. Paul, West St. Paul 4 Apple Valley, Eagan, Farmington, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake 5 Castle Rock, Douglas, Empire, Eureka, Greenvale, Hampton, Marshan, Nininger, Randolph, Ravenna, Sciota, Vermillion, and Waterford townships and the cities of Hampton, Inver Grove Heights (portions), Miesville, New Trier, Randolph, and Vermillion Freestanding Town Center Hastings

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 30 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.9: Transit Market Areas in Dakota County

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 31 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

In recent years, Dakota County has assumed both leading and assisting roles in the planning and delivery of transit improvements that address the evolving needs for transit in the County and region. In all of these efforts, Dakota County has maintained close coordination with municipalities, transit service providers, working groups (such as the I-35W Solutions Alliance), and additional stakeholders as appropriate.

COUNTY ROLE IN REGIONAL TRANSIT GOVERNANCE Dakota County and the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority cooperate in regional activities for funding and advancing the development of major transit capital investments within the County. Given the range of potential investments and jurisdictions a single project can involve, these efforts typically require close and complex coordination with numerous regional, state, and federal agencies that are involved in planning, funding, service operation, or facility construction. Locally, Dakota County is responsible for leading cooperative efforts with numerous agencies and stakeholder groups to address more localized or near-term needs for transit service. Existing transit services in Dakota County are illustrated in Figure 3.10. The map also identifies the various service providers.

REGIONAL TRANSITWAYS Dakota County and the DCRRA are active in the planning and implementation of several transitway projects defined in the Metropolitan Council‘s Transportation Policy Plan which defines a regional system of transitways with four extending to Dakota County: the Cedar Avenue Transitway, the I-35W Transitway, the Robert Street Transitway, and the Red Rock Transitway. Transitways offer riders faster and more reliable service through exclusive runningways, improvements in operating technology and rider information, and higher frequency service. These improvements are intended to provide residents and businesses with improved access to housing and employment through faster and more reliable transit service, both with the County and throughout the Twin Cities.

• METRO Red Line: Cedar Avenue Transitway (Bus Rapid Transit) — The Cedar Avenue Transitway is located between the Mall of America in Bloomington and CSAH 70 (215th St.) in Lakeville. The METRO Red Line began operations on the transitway in 2013, serving five stations with frequent all-day service. An additional five stations are identified for potential future extension as service demand warrants. Other express and local services within the corridor use many of the transitway facilities developed for METRO Red Line service. Dakota County led planning, project development and construction of the Cedar Avenue Transitway.

• METRO Orange Line: Interstate 35W Transitway (Bus Rapid Transit) — The planned Interstate 35W transitway extends from Heart of the City in Burnsville north to downtown Minneapolis. The METRO Orange Line will provide high frequency all-day service between the County and downtown Minneapolis, as well as intermediate stations and connecting services. Phase 1 will extend to I-35W and Burnsville Parkway in Burnsville. Dakota County is actively coordinating with the Metropolitan Council on project development and tasks for Phase 1 of the METRO Orange Line.

Elements of the transitway, including new runningways and stations in both the shoulders and median of I-35W, are complete or expected to be constructed in the coming years. This service is dependent upon station construction at Lake Street in Minneapolis, which will begin in 2020, and tunnel construction on Knox Avenue in Richfield. A potential extension will consider additional stations as far south as the Kenrick Park and Ride in Lakeville.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 32 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

• Red Rock Transitway (Bus Rapid Transit) — The planned Red Rock Corridor connects St. Paul, Hastings and communities in Washington County along TH 61. In 2014, the Red Rock Corridor Commission completed an update to an earlier alternative analysis, identifying bus rapid transit as the preferred transit mode for the corridor. This analysis does not suggest that extension of service to Hastings is supportable in the near- to medium-term. Intermediate efforts for improved service in the corridor include expansion of express service and park and ride capacity to establish a larger ridership base.

Dakota County was a member of the Red Rock Corridor Commission through 2017, and participated in its ongoing planning activities. In 2017, the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority left the Commission; staff continues to monitor Commission activities for any actions that may affect the County. • Robert Street Transitway — The planned Robert Street Transitway is recognized by the Dakota and Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authorities and the Metropolitan Council through its Transportation Policy Plan. In 2015, the Authorities concluded an alternatives analysis that evaluated investment options for high frequency transit service between downtown St. Paul and Rosemount. Two final alternatives, bus rapid transit and streetcar along Robert Street in St. Paul and West St. Paul, were identified for further consideration among the counties and cities along the proposed alignment.

The Dakota County and Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authorities are jointly responsible for the evaluation of alternative projects and identification of a locally preferred alternative to recommend for adoption into the Metropolitan Council’s Transportation Policy Plan.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 33 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.10: Existing Transit Service

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 34 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

TRANSIT SERVICE PROVIDERS • Metro Transit — Fixed route service provider in Northern Dakota County, including Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, West St. Paul, South St. Paul, and Lakeville. Metro Transit provides primarily local route service in this area, with several express routes in peak periods. • Minnesota Valley Transit Authority — Fixed route service provider for Burnsville, Eagan, Apple Valley, and Rosemount. MVTA service consists of extensive express service, local routes, and specialized service including flex routing and reverse commute routes. • Hiawathaland Transit – Fixed-route and dial-a-ride service operated by Three Rivers Community Action for the City of Northfield. Dial-a-ride service is arranged through a reservation system. • Transit Link — Dial-a-ride service managed by the Metropolitan Council. Service is provided in areas where there is no access to local fixed route service. Transit Link service is operated with policies that emphasize providing access to existing fixed route service to complete trips whenever feasible. • Metro Mobility — a shared ride public transportation service for certified riders who are unable to use regular fixed-route buses due to a disability or health condition. Trips are provided for any purpose. • County-Contracted Transportation Services — Dakota County provides specialized transportation services through its Community Services Division. Trips are generally intended for important appointments related to the services that clients are receiving, such as doctor visits or job seeking, when no other mode of transportation is available.

TRANSIT FACILITIES Transit facilities establish a tangible presence of transit service in a community. Facilities include stop amenities, roadway improvements for improved operations, maintenance and storage facilities, and supporting infrastructure for bicycle and pedestrian access. While operation and maintenance of these facilities is typically a responsibility of service providers, Dakota County has an active role in cooperating with regional agencies and transit service providers in the planning, finance, and development of these facilities. The following facility types have been established in Dakota County or are in development:

• Transit Centers — Transit centers serve as multiple focal points for transit services, enabling riders to access service or transfer between routes. These facilities provide climate controlled waiting areas, parking spaces, restrooms, and transit information. All centers have bus layover spaces. o Apple Valley Transit Station — this station features 768 surface and structured spaces, indoor climate-controlled waiting, restrooms and transit information. Buses pick up and drop off on Cedar Avenue, with riders crossing from the southbound drop off via the pedestrian overpass. An expansion of the station is programmed in the regional Transportation Improvement Program for 2019. This expansion will add additional levels to the structure, increasing capacity by approximately 330 spaces. The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority is designated as the lead agency for this project. o Burnsville Transit Station — this station has 1,428 parking spaces in a parking structure. Amenities include a climate-controlled indoor waiting area, restrooms, public telephones, ATM and vending machines, and bicycle racks and lockers. The Burnsville Bikeway Project provides 3.9 miles of paved paths connecting the station to other Burnsville and Dakota County bicycle and pedestrian trails.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 35 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

o Eagan Transit Station — the Eagan Transit Station has 679 parking spaces for MVTA riders. Amenities include a number of retail tenants on site, providing services such as dry cleaning and hairstyling, a climate-controlled waiting area, restroom, public telephones, vending machines, and bicycle racks and lockers. o Cedar Grove Transit Station — this station includes a 120 space open-air park & ride lot, climate controlled waiting area, bicycle lockers, and restrooms. The station serves as a primary transfer point between local routes and also connects directly to the Cedar Avenue Red Line via a skyway providing access to the median of TH 77. o Rosemount Transit Center — this station includes 102 parking spaces and indoor waiting area. This station serves riders of express lines to Downtown Minneapolis and a local route that connects to the METRO Red Line.

• Park & Ride Facilities — typically have limited amenities and are oriented towards express service commuters. Park and Rides include lots constructed solely for transit use, jointly used with a business or institution, or leased to a service provider by a private owner. The Metropolitan Council has forecast a growing need for park & ride facilities in Dakota County over coming decades. Park and ride facilities, capacities, and usage are listed below:

Table 3.5: Park and Ride Facilities Park and Ride Location Use (2017) Capacity 157th St. Station 15450 Cedar Avenue, Apple Valley 19 258 Apple Valley Transit Station 15450 Cedar Avenue S., Apple Valley 741 768 Blackhawk Park & Ride 4565 Blackhawk Road, Eagan 245 370 Burnsville Transit Station 100 E. Highway 13, Burnsville 1,387 1,428 Cedar Grove Transit Station 4035 Nicols Road, Eagan 37 166 Eagan Transit Station 3470 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan 297 626 Heart of the City Park & Ride 126th St. and Pillsbury Avenue, Burnsville 58 343 Kenrick Avenue Park & Ride 16775 Kenrick Avenue South, Lakeville 625 750 Lakeville-Cedar Park & Ride 18040 Cedar Avenue South 4 190 Palomino Park & Ride 7510 Palomino Drive, Apple Valley 213 318 Rosemount Transit Station 14550 Burnley Ave. S, Rosemount 79 102 West Saint Paul Sports Complex 1650 Oakdale, West St. Paul 53 100

• Transit Advantages — express and transitway services, where possible, make use of transit advantages built into the state trunk highway system and the County highway system. These include shoulder lanes, HOV lanes, HOV ramp bypasses and other improvements that allow for faster and more consistent transit travel times. Operation of transit vehicles on shoulders is allowed on parts of TH 77, TH 13, I-35E, CSAH 23 and CSAH 32. Buses are authorized to use I-35W MnPASS lanes. Transit advantages are shown in Figure 3.11. • Planned Transit Stations and Facilities — the need for additional stations and facilities is anticipated as planning and development work proceeds on transitways in Dakota County. In addition, the County cooperates with the Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, MVTA, and local cities on planning the location and scale of additional park and ride facilities for express service within the County. Express routes — existing routes are shown in Figure 3.10. Service providers may add new express services in the future.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 36 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.11: Transit Advantages

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 37 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

REGIONAL COOPERATION Many efforts to develop transit service and infrastructure are best undertaken through a regional approach to match the scale of the issues faced and to employ the most appropriate solutions. Dakota County participates in regional efforts that consider and implement regional solutions to improve the responsiveness and efficiency of transit services.

TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT Increased construction costs and tightening budgets have forced local and regional governments to reassess expansion plans for transportation networks and focus more on managing demand volumes using existing infrastructure and resources. Within the Twin Cities metropolitan region, the Metropolitan Council has signaled a shift from expansion to management of existing transportation capacity through its 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. Policies to aid in managing travel demand and roadway capacity include Travel Demand Management (TDM) practices. The goal of TDM is to provide incentives that reduce the amount of congestion on roadways during peak travel periods through multiple cost effective methods including demand shifting, higher vehicle occupancies, and improved traffic information. Ultimately, use of TDM practices should keep peak traffic volumes under roadway design capacities, allowing local and state governments to defer costly expansion projects.

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT Transit oriented development (TOD) describes compact, walkable development patterns that stress accessibility through transit service and other non-automobile modes of travel. TODs typically employ an integrated mix of uses including housing, schools, offices, public services, shopping, and commercial activities. TOD is intended to provide safe, efficient, and convenient access between housing and everyday destinations via transit, walking, or bicycling. Dakota County and local jurisdictions are able to influence land-use decisions through specialized planning and modification of routine planning processes.

COMPLETE STREETS Complete Streets is an approach to road planning and design that evaluates and balances the needs, safety, accessibility, and usability of all transportation users to preserve safety and efficiency for all modes. Minnesota Statutes §174.75 identifies complete streets as the planning, scoping, design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of roads in order to reasonably address the safety and accessibility needs of motorists, pedestrians, transit users and vehicles, bicyclists, and commercial and emergency vehicles moving along and across roads, intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and recognizes that the needs vary in urban, suburban, and rural settings.

The County will implement the complete streets approach during transportation project planning and development, operation, and maintenance activities. This approach helps to maximize the use of county highways and right-of-way to provide a comprehensive and connected multimodal transportation system. Complete streets implementation is based on, but not limited to, the following: community context, topography, road function, traffic speed, freight volumes, and pedestrian and bicyclist demand. Implementation options depend on each project’s unique situation and can include paved shoulders, trails or sidewalks, bicycle accommodations, pedestrian refuge medians, truck mountable curbs in roundabouts, signal timing, updated roadway striping, bus stop access, and other features. The County will implement the complete streets approach in compliance with State Statutes and MNDOT Policy.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 38 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Complete Streets has been broadly adopted by state and local governments in recent years, although no uniform guidelines or documentation exists. In practice, Complete Streets emphasizes safety and convenience of non-motorized transportation modes in the presence of motorized modes, with special consideration to appropriate modal segregation, intersection design, and integration with surrounding land uses. Use of Complete Streets concepts can substantially improve transitway and transit facility projects by improving the safety and accessibility to and from transit services. Transit service will also benefit through improved safety consideration to its specific operational needs.

Figure 3.12 shows the Region- and County-identified transit improvements that are in the Regional Transportation Policy Plan’s Current Revenue Scenario (planned and funded).

Figure 3.13 shows the County’s long-range vision for transit service, which includes planning study areas and projects that are not yet in the Regional Transportation Policy Plan under the Current Revenue Scenario. This map will be re-evaluated in the 2019 Transportation Plan update to incorporate recently completed transit studies and refine the vision for para-transit, transit, and transitways.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 39 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.12: Transit Improvements in the Regional Transportation Policy Plan

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 40 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.13: Future Dakota County Transit Improvements and Studies

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 41 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel THE IMPORTANCE OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION Pedestrian and bicyclists share destinations with motorists. Many of these destinations are on the County highway system, particularly commercial areas, schools, employment centers and regional parks. The County highway system is in many cases the most direct option for pedestrians and bicyclists; in some cases it is the only option. Most suburbanized areas of Dakota County lack a connected road network that would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to travel off the County system, making the County highway system the only choice. Pedestrians and bicyclists also interact with vehicle traffic on County highways when crossing these corridors. Motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users all require safe crossings with minimized delays.

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are an important element of a safe and efficient transportation system to serve all modes and users. Basic provision and improvement needs include continuous facilities that allow for safe and convenient use. Bicycling and pedestrian transportation planning provides multiple benefits to the county including environmental sustainability, safe routes for users, active living and improved health, improved transportation options, quality of life, and safety.

NETWORK CONNECTIVITY Dakota County has built more than 350 miles of multiuse trails and sidewalks within its right of way in the past 30 years. In that time, County policy evolved from building a trail on one side of highways to building a trail on both sides. Despite completing much of the system, critical gaps remain. The existing County pedestrian and bicycle network, shown in Figure 3.14, consists of trails and sidewalks along side County Highways in the urban and suburban portions of the County and regional greenway trails. Paved shoulders support walking and bicycling in the rural portions of the County. State, regional, and local networks are essential to provide access to and from the County system and to provide door to door connectivity.

Figures 3.15 and 3.16 depict existing gaps on the County highway pedestrian and bicycle network. Gaps are prioritized based on pedestrian and bicycle demand, which is estimated using the following factors: • Population density • Employment density • Age (population under 18 and over 65) • Presence of schools • Presence of shopping and services • Households without vehicles • Traffic volume • Posted highway speeds • Number of travel lanes • System connectivity • On the Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN)

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 42 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.14: Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle System in Dakota County

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 43 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.15: Gaps in the Existing County Pedestrian System

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 44 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.16: Gaps in the Existing County Bicycle System

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 45 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL To better develop opportunities for county residents to walk and bike for transportation and recreation, the County will need to work closely with local communities to improve conditions. The following should be considered when addressing pedestrian travel needs: • Destinations: such as parks, schools, activity centers and trails. • Networks: connections free of barriers such as railroads, busy roads, water bodies, hills, and isolated areas. • Density: non-motorized transportation becomes more efficient and convenient in mixed-use areas. • Safety: consider safety in infrastructure decisions. • Security: consider security in infrastructure decisions.

Pedestrian needs differ based on land use context. Communities in Dakota County have the following Met Council-identified Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designations (shown in Chapter 5, Figure 5.3): Urban Center, Suburban, Suburban Edge, Emerging Suburban Edge, Rural Residential, Diversified Rural, and Agricultural. The planned pedestrian system, shown Figure 3.17 addresses current pedestrian gaps on the County highway network in the Urban Center, Suburban, Suburban Edge, and Emerging Suburban community designations with shared use trails, where practical. The planned system also extends shared use trails on both sides of highways where future and suburban development is anticipated, and completes the County’s regional greenway trails. In the Rural Residential, Diversified Rural, and Rural Center designations, shared use trails may be considered along County Highways where there is high pedestrian and bicycle demand and where practical.

MOVING ALONG HIGHWAYS Bicyclists and pedestrians use different facilities based on ability and type of movement. Type A riders travel over 15 mph and should operate in travel lanes and shoulders to improve safety for all users. Type B riders have less experience and generally are recreational riders who operate safely on roadside trails. Type C riders are children, who are safest on the trail network. Pedestrians require well-maintained multiuse trails and safe road crossings. Shared use trails provide for bicycle travel in the urban and suburban portions of the County. Paved shoulders support bicycling in the rural and agricultural portions of the County. Figure 3.18 depicts the existing and planned bicycle network.

On Figure 3.18, planned greenways will include a shared-use trail separated from roads. Shared use trails are planned for bicycles in urban and suburban contexts. Shoulders are planned to support bicycling in rural contexts. The shoulder width required for bicycling in rural will be determined based on guidance from the March 2007 Bikeway Design Manual. Width required varies 4’-10’ based on land use, speed limit, average daily traffic volume, and number of travel lanes.

CROSSING HIGHWAYS Interstate, State, and County highways are usually higher speed roads that provide for a balance between mobility and access. The mobility function can conflict with pedestrian and bicyclist needs to cross these roads. Perceived and real safety concerns discourage crossing highways or traveling along them. Dakota County has been participating in the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) Barriers Study and is working on a Pedestrian and Bicycle Study that will further address barriers. Considerations to address these concerns include: • Grade-separated crossings (bridges or tunnels). These strategies should be evaluated as part of pedestrian and bicycle network needs when considering roadway improvement projects. Due to

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 46 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

their expense, these measures should be used at targeted locations on the County system, such as on high-volume roads, at intersections with greenways and in areas of high pedestrian demand. • Existing grade separations such as those for roads and waterway crossings should be considered and evaluated for pedestrian and bicycle networks, including the regional greenway system and RBTN. • At-grade crossing improvements should be considered and may include upgrading intersection sidewalks, curb ramps, and traffic signal systems to current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 47 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.17: Planned County Pedestrian System

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 48 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.18: Planned County Bicycle System

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 49 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

COUNTYWIDE GREENWAY SYSTEM The County has begun assembling corridors to establish its 200-mile system of greenways. The Dakota County Greenway system includes regional trails within the county that are part of the Metropolitan Council Regional Parks System. County greenways are a combination of regional trails open to the public, master planned regional trails, regional trail search corridors, existing and planned state trails, and county greenway trails. Dakota County greenways are envisioned as multi-functional corridors with a shared use regional trail for recreation and transportation, habitat corridors, and water quality. Corridor width and character varies based on land use context.

This high-quality non-motorized transportation system will supplement the current roadside trail network and in many places be preferred transportation corridors for bicyclists, pedestrians and wheelchair users. In addition to non-motorized transportation, the system will enhance recreation, water quality and habitat.

REGIONAL BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK (RBTN) Per Met Council requirements, Figure 3.19 illustrates the Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN), including regional destinations within the County. The Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) was established in The Metropolitan Council 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, to establish a network of on-street bikeways and off-road trails improve bicycle transportation at the regional level and to encourage planning and implementation of future bikeways by cities, counties, parks agencies, and the state.

The RBTN includes Tier 1 priorities, which are the highest for regional planning and investment, and Tier 2 priorities, which are lower. Alignments are specific routes and corridors are search areas. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 RBTN corridors are concentrated in the developed and developing northwestern section of the County. RBTN corridors primarily extend along existing or planned minor arterial highway corridors, and connect the majority of the RBTN destinations. Dakota County will continue to work with the Metropolitan Council on RBTN pedestrian and bicycle facilities when the RBTN aligns with the existing and planned County pedestrian and bicycle system. Dakota County envisions incorporating the regional greenway system into the RBTN Tier 1 corridors. While greenways primarily function as part of the regional park system, they are often funded with federal transportation dollars and may be designated as part of the Regional Bicycle Transportation Network as desirable bicycle corridors. The RBTN in Dakota County is shown in Figure 3.19.

DAKOTA COUNTY PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE STUDY Dakota County is developing a pedestrian and bicycle plan to create a unified vision for countywide walking and bicycling networks. The study will identify policies, strategies and tools to integrate pedestrian and bicycling modes into the transportation system to provide for safe, timely, and efficient connections between communities, activity generators, and employment center. The study will also encourage active living and improve community health. Study findings will be considered for inclusion in the 2019 update of the full Dakota County Transportation Plan.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 50 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.19: Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN)

Dakota County Office of Planning

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 51 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Emerging Technologies and Transportation AUTONOMOUS AND CONNECTED VEHICLES Emerging technologies, such as autonomous and connected vehicles, are likely to have great future impact on the transportation systems of today. The private sector currently is leading the way with developing and rolling out new technologies. The timing of widespread public adoption and necessary changes to public sector transportation systems design and operations remains uncertain. Traditional transportation planning and operations will likely predominate through the current ten-year Comprehensive Plan cycle.

The Dakota County Office of Performance Analysis1 evaluated current issues related to autonomous (AV) and connected-communicating vehicles in key areas of interest, summarized below:

1. Impacts on development patterns, residency, and employment: Semi-autonomous vehicles are likely to be widely available by the 2020s, and fully autonomous vehicles may become legal to operate by the mid-2020s. Studies on land-use impacts indicate that AVs have the potential to increase sprawl patterns, as longer commutes can be spent doing things besides operating a vehicle. In denser urban areas, studies allude to increases in congestion, with more vehicles on the road but perhaps a decreased need for parking. Major changes are anticipated for industries that employ drivers, currently three percent of the national labor force.

2. Legislative and regulatory issues: Most states have considered, but fewer have enacted new legislation related to AVs. Proposed laws generally have focused on definitions of vehicle autonomy, AV testing provisions, and insurance and liability issues.

3. Interaction with existing infrastructure: Communication between vehicles and infrastructure such as traffic signals (V2I) is already available on a very limited basis, and has strong potential for use in safety notification of construction zones and weather or road hazards. V2I systems also can inform drivers of “time to green” when approaching red lights. Vehicle-to-infrastructure and other vehicles (V2X) communication is further behind, but is anticipated to greatly reduce the severity of crashes. V2X effectiveness is contingent on a having a critical mass of similarly equipped vehicles on the road. In the short term, the County could pilot V2I studies on select County highways.

4. Highway operations and design: AVs will be able to operate safely with less distance between cars on highways, even “platooning” in tight formation, which raises questions about potentially reducing the number of driving lanes and lane widths in the future. Near-term, AVs must be able to clearly “read” lane markings, roadway signs, and traffic signals (V2I). Pilot studies in V2I are recommended for the near term.

5. Transitioning with manual vehicles: Integration of AV technology into the transportation system will be a lengthy process, and full conversion to AVs is likely decades away. Concern about a hazardous transition period when both types of vehicles are on the road is a common theme in public surveys on the topic. Suggested strategies to monitor and ease the transition include: 1) develop dedicated AV lanes

1 Autonomous Vehicles Issues and Trends, August 2017. Dakota County Office of Performance Analysis

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 52 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

on highways, 2) equip person-operated vehicles with the technology to communicate with AVs, and 3) deploy AVs incrementally while familiarizing the public with AV technology.

6. Interactions with pedestrians and bicycles: Less is known about how AVs will communicate with and avoid pedestrians and bicyclists. Research suggests that a safer environment will be possible, especially if AVs are programmed to stop and yield to pedestrian and bicyclists. In urban areas, greater separation of vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure may be needed. As AVs appear on County roads, there will be a need for more public information.

7. Autonomous mass transit: Public transit and transportation services have great potential for AV technology, which would be more effective at reducing congestion than individual AVs in highly urbanized areas. Dedicated bus rapid transit lanes could provide an optimal testing ground for future Automated Rapid Transit (ART) and may be able to accommodate personal AVs during the transition period. AV technology may also provide solutions for individuals who are not able to drive, through ride services or ride-sharing businesses.

8. Uses and privacy of vehicle data: AVs are expected to use and produce tremendous amounts of data on a daily basis. While the public is accustomed to consent agreements for connected personal electronics, the full implications of AV data are evolving. AV data will be stored and owned by software proprietors and the automotive industry has begun discussing consumer data privacy standards. Public agency use of the data is also an evolving area, with potential applicability in planning.

Dakota County will monitor autonomous vehicle technology adoption, as well as other technological innovations that will have impact on transportation trends and infrastructure, and consider system changes when it makes sense. Dakota County has begun installation of high speed fiber optics networks between its traffic signals to improve flow, and will also coordinate with transportation partners in the region in the monitoring, evaluation, and implementation of technology-driven changes to transportation systems. Dakota County has formed a cross-departmental County Autonomous Vehicle (CAV) team to monitor and respond to opportunities related to autonomous and connected vehicles and other emerging technologies.

Other Modes Aviation and freight facilities in and adjacent to Dakota County are illustrated in Figure 3.20 and described in the following sections: • Trucking (truck terminals, freight facilities, manufacturing/distribution locations, large shopping areas, and general freight volumes expressed in dollar values) • Railroads (major lines, freight facilities) • Commercial navigation (barge facilities) • Aviation (airports, airport noise contours, and seaplane bases)

Figure 3.21 shows existing heavy commercial traffic volumes, based on State data from 2016.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 53 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.20: Rail, Aviation, Trucking, and Barging Facilities

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 54 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.21: Existing Heavy Commercial Traffic Volumes (2016 HCADT)

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 55 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

TRUCKING Truck movement of freight is very important to the economic vitality of the County and region. Trucks are the predominant mode for most regional and short-haul freight trips. Economic competitiveness will depend in part on a transportation system that allows efficient truck movement. Three major truck terminals (with over 1,000 trucks) are located within the county, and include facilities in Eagan on CSAH 26 (Lone Oak Road) between I-35E and TH 55; in Inver Grove Heights south of TH 55; and in Burnsville west of I-35W and north of TH 13. Airlake Industrial Park, on CSAH 70 in Lakeville, is the second largest industrial park by acreage in the Twin Cities and a major generator of regional truck trips. It also includes Airlake Airport, performing reliever functions for the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Businesses in the park are also served by both freight and short line regional service via CP Rail.

A number of state trunk highways and interstate highways provide access to commercial operations (barge terminals, truck terminals, manufacturing operations, etc.) within the County. These highways are fed by the County highway system impacting the operations, maintenance and signalization (and in some cases the geometrics) of County highways. To accommodate large numbers of trucks on the highways, the 2012 Dakota County Transportation Plan identified the implementation of a 10-ton system of County highways to facilitate efficient truck movements within the county. (Figure 3.23)

The Regional Truck Highway Corridor Study prepared for the Metropolitan Council in 2017 identified major trucking routes in the Metropolitan Area, evaluated potential safety and congestions issues, and recommended that the study inform state investments in improving freight systems. (Figure 3.22) At this time, there are no highly significant challenges to freight movement in Dakota County. The County is working to expand the 10-ton road network through new construction, reconstruction, and certification of existing County highways to accommodate heavier commercial vehicles. The only known problem in the current system is a low clearance railroad bridge in Castle Rock Township on CSAH 86.

Figure 3.22: Tiered Truck Corridors in Dakota County, Metropolitan Council

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 56 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 3.23: Ten-Ton Highways

SEH, Inc.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 57 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

RAILROADS Railroads are a significant element in the transportation system. They continue to play an important role in the movement of freight to and between ports and major urban areas. Railroads also have an impact on land use, the physical and social environment, and other components of the transportation system.

Two Class I rail carriers operate in Dakota County. Class I rail carriers are defined by exceeding approximately $350 million in annual operating revenues. These two carriers are the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Union Pacific Railroad. Progressive Rail, a short line railroad with several branch routes, also operates within the County and is based at the Airlake Industrial Park.

COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION Commercial navigation continues to be an important part of the transportation system. Metropolitan Council estimates that nearly 1,000 jobs in the county were related to commercial navigation and that terminals handled approximately 16 percent of the region‘s river barge activity. The following barge terminals operate within the County: • Flint Hills Resources (Rosemount): barge/truck operations, petroleum products • U.S. Salt (Burnsville): salt, de-icing products • Savage Port Area (Savage, Scott County): grain, salt, fertilizer • Dakota River Terminal (South St. Paul): bulk commodities • C.F. Industries Pine Bend Terminal (Inver Grove Heights): anhydrous ammonia • C.F. Industries Warehouse (Rosemount): bulk fertilizer

AVIATION Two airports in the county are part of the regional airports system. Both are reliever airports. They reduce congestion at the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport and provide increased aviation access to nearby communities. • Airlake Airport — The Airlake Airport is under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and is location in Lakeville and Eureka Township, west of CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue) and south of CSAH 70 (215th Street). It is classified as a reliever airport with a 4,099- foot runway. It had 37,000 annual operations (landings and takeoffs) in 2015. Approximately 133 aircraft are based at the airport which serves private, recreational, and some business aviation purposes. MAC adopted a 2035 comprehensive plan for the airport in 2018 that recommends extending the runway to 4,850 feet, in an alignment that does not necessitate moving Cedar Avenue. However, the 2035 plan identifies a need to relocate the intersection of 225th Street and Cedar Avenue further to the south.

• South St. Paul Municipal Airport — The South St. Paul Municipal Airport (Fleming Field) is under the jurisdiction of the City of South St. Paul and is located north of CSAH 26 (Lone Oak Road) and west of CSAH 56 (Concord Boulevard). It is classified as a minor airport in the regional system with one 4,000-foot runway. It had approximately 62,000 annual landings and takeoffs in 2012. Approximately 225 aircraft are based at the airport which serves private and recreational purposes.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 58 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

The following metropolitan airports are outside Dakota County but have major effects on the County. • Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport (MSP) is under the jurisdiction of the MAC and is located in Hennepin County north and west of Eagan and Mendota Heights. It is the Region’s international airport and serves primarily scheduled air passenger and air cargo services.

• St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman Field) is under the jurisdiction of the MAC and is located south of the Mississippi River in St. Paul and just north of South St. Paul. It is classified as the primary reliever for Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport (MSP).

Federal Regulation Title 14, Part 77 establishes standards for protection of aviation airspace and requirements for notification of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) when new structures or objects are being built or altered in proximity to navigable airspace. On notification, the FAA evaluates impacts to aviation operations and potential hazards, identifies mitigation needs, and charts new structures. Title 14, Part 77.13 requires notification of the FAA Administrator when:

• Construction or alteration exceeds 200 feet above ground level • Construction or alteration: o within 20,000 feet of a public use or military airport exceeds a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet o within 10,000 feet of a public use or military airport exceeds 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet o within 5,000 feet of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface • The prescribed adjusted height of any highway, railroad or other traverse way would exceed the above noted standards • When requested by FAA • Construction or alteration is located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or location

Dakota County does not administer land use control except in rural floodplain and shoreland areas. For County construction and alteration projects related to its transportation and parks system, the County is subject to local community land use controls, which are required to incorporate the requirements of Title 14, Part 77. Where the County has land use control, any structures or objects of a nature to trigger the Title 14, Part 77 requirements generally would be prohibited in floodplain. Shoreland structures with potential impacts would be reported to the FAA in accordance with the standards referenced above.

Aircraft noise from operations at MSP is a serious concern for residents of northern Dakota County. The County will continue to review monitoring of aircraft noise from operations at MSP to ensure compliance with current standards and regulations and encourage further noise reduction initiatives.

Seaplanes must operate in compliance with Minnesota Rules 8800.2600, 8800.2700, and 8800.2800. Dakota County has seven public waters that permit seaplane operations. These include: • Alimagnet Lake, in Apple Valley and Burnsville • Byllesby Reservoir, in Randolph and Randolph Township • Crystal Lake, in Burnsville and Lakeville • Lake Marion, in Lakeville • Wipline Seaplane Base on the Mississippi River • Orchard Lake, in Lakeville • St. Croix River, in Washington County (also shown under Dakota County per State Rules)

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 59 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Contributing Planning Activities The following plans and studies have been completed since the 2012 Transportation Plan.

STATE, REGIONAL, AND DAKOTA COUNTY STUDIES AND PLANS Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan 2017-2036 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) completed an update to its 20- year statewide transportation plan in January 2017. Major findings, influences or considerations incorporated into the Transportation Plan include: • MnDOT identifies a total of $65 billion in transportation needs and only $15 billion in projected revenue. It is unlikely that future transportation funding will increase sufficiently to meet the unmet needs. Therefore, MnDOT’s approach will be to emphasize stronger partnerships and innovation and call for a more comprehensive and fiscally realistic approach (moving to smaller low cost solutions). • Identifies challenges including growth, aging and more diversified population, aging infrastructure and declining physical system conditions and concerns for energy and the environment. • Identifies opportunities including new approaches to safety and congestion and increased interest in multimodal solutions.

Minnesota Statewide Freight System Plan The 2016 Minnesota Statewide Freight System Plan provides a policy framework and strategies for MnDOT, the Minnesota Freight Advisory Committee (MFAC) and other freight stakeholders to guide planning and investment in various transportation modes. Developed cooperatively with private and other public entities, the comprehensive plan also provides guidelines in project development and operational decisions, all in accordance with the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the recently passed Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The plan also highlights best practices, strategies, and cooperative partnerships/associations, while also addressing other federal and Minnesota initiatives.

2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) The Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) presents the Metropolitan Council’s policies and plans to guide development of the region’s transportation system. The TPP must be consistent with the regional vision set forth in Thrive MSP 2040, and describe how the transportation system will be developed and operate to support Thrive MSP goals. The Council adopted the 2040 TPP in January 2015.

Regional Truck Highway Corridor Study This 2017 study identified and prioritized the most significant regional truck highway corridors in the seven county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, through evaluation of average annual truck volume, truck percentage of total traffic, proximity to identified freight clusters, and proximity to regional freight terminals. Corridors were assigned to one of three significance tiers. Tier One includes more than 200 miles of interstate highways, as well as more than 300 miles of principal and minor arterials, many of which may serve as the important “last mile” connection to freight destinations. Identified corridors were further evaluated for congestion and safety issues to develop investment recommendations.

Highway 13 Corridor Study The study’s primary purpose was to update guidance for transportation improvements along TH 13 through Savage and western Burnsville. The study will identify investments, needs, and show how they: • Address system performance on TH 13

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 60 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

• Improve the safety of the corridor for motorists and pedestrians • Support local economic and community development along the TH 13.

Recommendations were developed that focused on lower cost/high benefit solutions that target mitigation of the highest risk areas addressing safety and mobility of passenger vehicles, transit, heavy truck movements, and pedestrians/bicyclists.

Red Rock Corridor Implementation Plan The Implementation Plan builds off the recommendations from the Red Rock Alternatives Analysis Updated (AAU) to create financial, development, and service plans to provide better transit connections between corridor communities and the regional network. The Implementation Plan process included: • Stakeholder Engagement • Alternative Evaluation • Preferred Alternative • Financial Plan • Phasing Plan Recommendations focus on increasing local and express bus service and building transit ridership. The plan contains multiple recommendations that include working with Metro Transit to maintain and increase corridor transit service. In addition to building ridership, another important near-term recommendation is to work with cities within the corridor to update their comprehensive plans with increased population and job densities within the station areas. Longer term recommendations focus on introducing BRT to the corridor. This phase recommends implementing the corridor city and county comprehensive plans that were made with Red Rock BRT in mind and updating the forecasted ridership based on those updates. Other recommendations include monitoring ridership, continuing to invest in station area development and working with Metro Transit to maintain or increase service while monitoring the corridor for the best time to implement BRT service.

Twin Cities Aviation System Technical Report The Twin Cities Aviation System consists of 11 airports that provide aviation services to the seven county metropolitan region. This report contains new aviation forecasts and evaluations to be used to update the Twin Cities 2030 Aviation System Plan. The aviation section of the region’s Transportation Policy Plan will be amended as appropriate to reflect the new information.

Airlake Airport 2035 Long Term Comprehensive Plan The MAC completed a 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan for Airlake Airport in 2018. The plan envisions: • Displacing the Runway 12 threshold to provide airspace clearance over railroad tracks • Extending Runway 12-30 with declared distances to maximize overall airfield utility for existing users • Reconfiguring the taxiway and expanding the apron area Any required environmental review for the planned improvements at Airlake Airport will be completed prior to construction.

Regional Highway Spending and Investment Needs Study This study is and update of the 2040 TPP Finance Chapter aimed at improving information on the A- Minor Functional Classification System. The study provides estimated needs and available revenues.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 61 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

MN Pass Study This study updates the list of MnPass expansion corridors in the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. The study will identify and evaluate MnPass issues, opportunities and risks from a regional needs perspective and from a national state-of-the-practice perspective.

Dakota County Travel Demand Model The Dakota County Travel Demand Model is based on the Twin Cities Regional Model developed and maintained by the Metropolitan Council. The Dakota County model includes enhanced transportation network and socioeconomic detail within the boundaries of the county. Model parameters include County-specific travel information in combination with the regional model parameters in order to maintain consistency with the regional model while providing more accurate local detail.

After consultation with Metropolitan Council staff, Dakota County is presenting its original 2030 travel demand model projections with updated existing volumes and appropriate adjustments and using it as the 2040 travel demand projection for this Comprehensive Plan. The following led to this decision: • The annual trip growth rate for the county has declined since the County last developed the 2030 travel demand model; • Metropolitan Council population projections for the county are now lower for 2040 than those projected in the past for 2030; and • The County will be re-examining the entire transportation section in approximately two years.

In some instances revisions to 2040 projects were made based on results of recent studies conducted. The following studies provided for these updates at several locations on the County highway system: • CSAH 26 Traffic Operations Memo • CSAH 50/60 Intersection Study • Pine Bend Arterial Connector Study • Regional Roadway System Visioning Study • UMORE Park Development Study

Dakota County will update the existing 2030 travel demand model to reflect forecast 2040 population as part of Phase 2 of the Transportation Plan Update to be completed in approximately two years after the Dakota County cities complete their respective comprehensive plan updates. This approach allows the County model to reflect the 2040 demographic projections currently being established by each community and is consistent with the process followed during the Year 2030 comprehensive planning process.

CSAH 31 Corridor Study The purpose of the study was to identify a long-term improvement plan for Pilot Knob Rd between Yankee Doodle Rd and Central Parkway/Northwood Parkway to address existing traffic operational issues and safety concerns along with a plan to accommodate traffic growth in the area. The key elements of the Pilot Knob Road Corridor Study were to: • Document the need for improvements which may include; capacity improvements, access modifications, local street connections, median installation and additional lanes or turn lanes, and intersection control changes • Identify corridor concepts • Select a recommended corridor improvement plan • Develop an implementation plan

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 62 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

The study recommended a series of operational and access improvements along CSAH 31 which have since been constructed.

CSAH 50 Corridor Study This study was developed to provide Dakota County and the City of Lakeville a better understanding of existing and future traffic operations along the CSAH 50 (Kenwood Trail) corridor. The main questions answered by this study included: • What changes in traffic operations can be expected from the implementation of a roundabout at the CSAH 50/60 intersection? • What other corridor improvements may be necessary along the corridor to provide acceptable traffic operations both near‐term and long‐term?

Study recommendations included: • Planning and construction should continue for the roundabout at CSAH 60. • A follow‐up Gap Analysis Study should be performed after construction of the roundabout to verify the results of the modeling. • Dakota County and City of Lakeville should consider improving CSAH 50 to a four‐lane roadway to reduce delays along the corridor and to address the challenges related to growth and development in the area. • The Jaguar Avenue approach to CSAH 50 should be widened to provide separate left and right turn lanes. • The Future Access and Traffic Control Plan developed as part of this project should be used to guide future decisions on the CSAH 50 corridor.

METRO Red Line – Cedar Avenue Transitway BRT Implementation Plan Update The purpose of the 2015 Implementation Plan Update (IPU) is to reflect operational experience of the METRO Red Line since 2013 and changing conditions in the corridor and in the region. These changes include recent updates to forecasted employment growth, population growth, and land uses, which provide an opportunity to reassess the demand for transit service around the Cedar Avenue Transitway. Regionally the Metropolitan Council Regional Solicitation project prioritization and selection criteria have also changed, which modifies the availability of these funds for the Cedar Avenue Transitway.

METRO Orange Line Extension Study Dakota County is leading the METRO Orange Line Extension Study to evaluate alternatives for operations, station locations, station facilities, runningway improvements for a potential expansion of METRO Orange Line service into southern Burnsville and Lakeville. This study is expected to conclude in mid-2019 with a recommended project and supporting actions for the County, local cities, and transit service providers to pursue. Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Analysis Study The purpose of the Robert Street Alternatives Analysis (AA) was to understand the major transportation patterns and needs within the defined study area in order to identify the ideal transit investments that could best accommodate present and future transit needs. The study was initiated in response to recent and expected changes within the study area including growth in population and employment, changes in demographics with respect to age, and increased overall travel volumes; all factors that drive the need for increased transit service levels and infrastructure.

The study process resulted in the following recommendations:

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 63 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

• Conclude the AA process without a locally preferred alternative and carry forward the two strongest options for further study: Arterial BRT and Modern Streetcar • Begin assessment of traditional express service on TH 52

Dakota County East-West Transit Study The Dakota County East-West Transit Study (East-West Transit Study) addressed existing and emerging needs for east-west oriented transit in the county. The study looked for opportunities to improve the quality of fixed route transit service in Dakota County and improve connections to the regional transit system by identifying and evaluating potential transit corridors. Recommendations were developed to improve connections to employment, improve mobility to and from areas adjacent to the county, and expand the range of travel options for transit-dependent populations. The corridors identified for further consideration include: • Wentworth Avenue is recommended for further consideration of additional frequency along existing parallel routes. • MN-110 (to be renamed 62) is recommended for further consideration in coordination with the implementation of the Red Rock, Gold Line, or Robert Street transitways. • Yankee Doodle Road is recommended for further consideration to directly connect the many regional and local destinations and attractions throughout the corridor • Cliff Road is recommended for further consideration to provide a new connection between the future Orange Line and the Red Line stations • CSAH 42 (150th Street) is recommended as the highest priority for further consideration. Ongoing implementation planning is focusing on extending service to areas of growing employment, Dakota County Technical College, and connections to the Red Line and future Orange Line.

Eastern Dakota County Transit Study Dakota County is completing the Eastern Transit Study to evaluate present and future needs for a variety of transit service and facilities in northeastern Dakota County (West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount, and Hastings and Nininger Township). The study will identify and evaluate critical transit needs and possible improvements in transit mobility. Study recommendations will address a range of needs and development patterns in the study area, and will consider multiple types of transit services.

North-South Arterial Connector Study Dakota County and the cities of Rosemount, Inver Grove Heights, and Eagan are working together toward a common goal of proactively planning for future transportation needs based on expected growth and development in their Comprehensive Plans. The Dakota County Arterial Connector Study will prioritize future infrastructure improvements and reduce long-term costs and future right-of-way impacts. The study is ongoing with the County evaluating additional options based on stakeholder input.

Dakota County ADA Transition Plan Dakota County is preparing a plan to ensure the highway system, including roads, sidewalks and adjacent trails, meets the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plan will guide the county as it continues to provide accessibility to its transportation infrastructure.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 64 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Dakota County Intersection Control Study Dakota County works to keep vehicle accident numbers down by creating and maintaining a safe system of roads. One place where safety is especially important is at intersections. Dakota County is continually assessing intersections and looking at traffic volumes, delay, crash reports and overall operation to determine if and when traffic control changes are needed. Recent intersection control studies include CSAH 32 (Cliff Road) and Dodd Road and CSAH 46 (160th Street) and CR 33 (Diamond Path). Future studies are yet to be identified.

Dakota County Principal Arterial Study This study addressed the future designation of some highways in the County as principal arterials, which are planned or managed to provide time-efficient and safe travel over long distances for many motorists – with emphasis on mobility over access. Freeways are principal arterials, but this study focused on non- freeway principal arterials.

Dakota County evaluated the need for existing and future principal arterials within Dakota County. The need for the study is based on large gaps in principal arterials on the system. Spacing of north-south principal arterials varies from four miles along I-494 in the north to 18 miles along County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 86 in the south. Dakota County does not have another east-west principal arterial south of CSAH 42, a distance of 19 miles. The Principal Arterial Study recommended:

4. Designation of the following County corridors as future principal arterials: a. County State Aid Highway 86 from the west County line to Trunk Highway 52 b. County State Aid Highway 70 from the west County line to County State Aid Highway 23; future County 70 from County State Aid Highway 23 to County State Aid Highway 31; and County State Aid Highway 74 from County State Aid Highway 31 to Trunk Highway 3 c. County State Aid Highway 28 from Trunk Highway 149 to Trunk Highway 55; and existing/future County State Aid Highway 63 from Trunk Highway 55 to I-494 d. County State Aid Highway 23 from County State Aid Highway 86 to County State Aid Highway 42

5. Request for principal arterial designation through the Metropolitan Council’s Transportation Advisory Board process for: a. County State Aid Highway 23 from County State Aid Highway 70 to County State Aid Highway 42 b. County State Aid Highway 70 from I-35 west ramp to County State Aid Highway 23

6. Recognition of the following State Trunk Highways as future principal arterials: a. Trunk Highway 3 from the south County line to Trunk Highway 149 b. Trunk Highway 50 from Trunk Highway 3 to Trunk Highway 61 c. Trunk Highway 61 from Trunk Highway 50 to Trunk Highway 316 d. Trunk Highway 149 from Trunk Highway 3 to Trunk Highway 55

Dakota County adopted the Principal Arterial Study on October 23, 2018.

Autonomous Vehicles Issues and Trends: Dakota County Office of Performance Analysis The study looked at areas related to the emerging technologies of autonomous and connected vehicles: • Impacts on development patterns, residency, and employment • Legislative and regulatory issues • Interaction with existing infrastructure

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 65 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

• Highway operations and design • Transitioning with manual vehicles • Interactions with pedestrians and bicycles • Autonomous mass transit • Uses and privacy of vehicle data

Implementation As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the Transportation Chapter is an abridged version of the County’s full Transportation Plan, which was last updated in 2012 and is scheduled to be updated again beginning in 2019. The full Transportation Plan update will reflect city-planned land use changes in their 2018 Comprehensive Plans and corresponding changes to Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) and model. This Transportation Chapter does not supersede the full Transportation Plan, but may include updated information for clarity and accuracy. Updates and revisions to this chapter are anticipated after the 2019 update to the County’s full Transportation Plan.

Additional information on implementation and the 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan for Transportation are included in Chapter 6.

Chapter 3: Transportation, Page 66 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

CHAPTER 4: PARK SYSTEM

Purpose and Background The purpose of Parks Chapter is to affirm the vision and direction for the Dakota County Park System through 2040 and conform to regional goals and policies for the Metropolitan Regional Park System embodied in THRIVE MSP 2040 and Regional Parks Policy Plan.

Dakota County maintains its Park System Plan as a stand-alone document that covers parks acquisition, development, management, operations, and finance in greater detail. The most recent Park System Plan was included as the Parks Chapter of Dakota County’s last Comprehensive Plan, DC2030 and amended in 2012. For the current Comprehensive Plan update (DC2040), this abridged Parks Chapter provides higher level guidance intended to fully meet the requirements set forth by the Metropolitan Council. This Parks Chapter does not supersede the Park System Plan, but builds on the foundation it has provided.

County Plan Guidance This chapter was guided by goals and principles that define a desired future for Dakota County:

Guiding Principles for the Park System Dakota County Parks Mission and Vision

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE PARK SYSTEM Sustainability: People live comfortably in friendly, clean, and healthy communities without placing environmental, economic, and social burdens on current and future generations. Within the park system, sustainability is fundamental in facility design, operations, resource management, and visitor services such as events, education, and volunteerism.

Connectedness: Economic, social, and natural systems are interconnected. Within the park system, greenways link public open space and bring people to popular destinations, such as parks, schools, lakes, neighborhoods, and trails. Outdoor and environmental education programs help visitors build connections to the natural world.

Collaboration: The public and private sectors coordinate their efforts toward natural resource, open space, and recreation goals. Limited resources are maximized through increased collaboration on greenways, natural resources stewardship, and park visitor services.

Economic Vitality: High quality park environments with healthy natural systems and public open space contribute to a community’s identity and overall desirability.

Growing and Nurturing People: Parks can create environments where people of all ages, incomes, and backgrounds can thrive. Parks provide much-needed nature experiences, especially for today’s and tomorrow’s children. Education programs enhance appreciation of the natural world and healthy recreation. Greenways encourage active lifestyles by bringing parks close to where people live and work.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 67 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

DAKOTA COUNTY PARKS MISSION To enrich lives by providing high quality recreation and education opportunities in harmony with natural resource preservation and stewardship.

DAKOTA COUNTY PARKS VISION Great Places, Connected Places, Protected Places

Great Places: Serve residents and park visitors by providing high quality, balanced recreation and education opportunities with excellent services and information in a setting of healthy park landscapes.

Connected Places: Collaboratively plan greenways with trails to link open space, working in partnership with other landowners and agencies.

Protected Places: Protect, improve, and manage park natural resources and collaborate on healthier natural systems countywide.

Figure 4.1: Dakota County Park System Vision

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 68 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Park System Goals and Objectives Goal 4.1: Great Places Add nature-based or natural resource compatible park recreation and services that people expect and appreciate.

Objectives: 1. Provide a balanced variety of high–quality, nature-based or natural resource compatible, popular, year-round activities to promote healthy active lifestyles. 2. Welcome visitors of all backgrounds, interests, and abilities to their parks. 3. Exemplify sustainability and innovation as recreation trademarks of Dakota County Parks. Enhance provision of quality outdoor and environmental education. 4. Provide exceptional service delivery and build public awareness of recreation opportunities.

Goal 4.2: Connected Places Develop a network of collaboratively operated greenways to link parks and popular destinations

Objectives: 1. Protect, restore, and connect Dakota County’s urban natural areas and open space (green infrastructure), using regional greenways as a framework. 2. Provide convenient and accessible recreational open space. 3. Create Greenway Collaboratives to achieve mutual objectives for greenways and trails.

Goal 4.3: Protected Places Protect and manage natural and cultural resources and green infrastructure in Dakota County

Objectives: 1. Implement the 2017 Natural Resources Management Plan to manage vegetation, water, and wildlife in regional parks, park reserves, county parks, regional greenways, and park conservation areas. 2. Protect, design, and maintain scenic park viewsheds to enhance visitor experience. 3. Protect park cultural resources and offer appropriate opportunities for visitors to experience them. 4. Design and maintain park facilities sustainably, to reduce and avoid negative environmental impacts. 5. Acquire and protect park and greenway lands through a strategic and comprehensive approach. 6. Develop and enhance collaborations for County parkland and greenway acquisition and protection. 7. Protect public-value lands through a strategic and comprehensive approach.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 69 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Goal 4.4: Build awareness of Parks, inform and engage the public

Objectives: 1. Build awareness of the Park System. 2. Enhance public access to timely and specific park information, including safety recommendations, recreation, park resources, events, programs, projects, and services. 3. Engage the public in meaningful and diverse ways, through communication and outreach. 4. Provide park operations and services using the 2017 Parks Visitor Services Plan to enhance visitor experience, increase awareness, and serve more residents. 5. Increase volunteerism in the park system.

Existing Dakota County Parks and Greenways Located in the southeast corner of the seven-county Minneapolis-St. Paul area, the Dakota County Park System serves the state’s third most populous county. With more than 5,000 acres and a rapidly- growing network of greenways, Dakota County Parks is a nature-based system that exists to help meet the needs of over 400,000 county residents. The System includes:

Regional Parks: County Park Conservation Areas: Lake Byllesby Regional Park Cannon River Unit Lebanon Hills Regional Park North Creek Unit Whitetail Woods Regional Park South Creek Unit Vermillion River Unit Park Reserves: Miesville Ravine Park Reserve Regional Greenways: Spring Lake Park Reserve Minnesota River Regional Greenway Big Rivers Regional Trail County Parks: Mississippi River Regional Trail Thompson County Park River to River Regional Greenway A growing network of Regional Greenways Dakota Woods Dog Park

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 70 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 4.2: Existing Parks, Natural Areas, and Greenways

Source: Dakota County Office of Planning, 2018

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 71 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

LAKE BYLLESBY REGIONAL PARK Lake Byllesby Park is on the County’s south border along the Figure 4.3: Bluff view from East Lake Byllesby shores of the Cannon River and Lake Byllesby. The Lake is the largest water body in the south metro and has been a significant recreation resource since its formation by construction of the Byllesby Hydroelectric Dam in 1910. The dam is on park property and still generates power. The Park has sections at the east and west ends of the reservoir. The east park near Cannon Falls is developed and intensively used. Its most notable feature is Echo Point, a peninsula extending west into the lake. The east park is generally flat except for the river gorge just below the dam. The west park, south of the City of Randolph, has not been developed, and has mostly flat terrain with wetlands, floodplain forests, and small areas of native prairie. Mining in the early 1900s created small areas of irregular landscape. The west park has mill ruins from the late 1800s, when the town of Cascade was platted but not fully developed. Visitation: 114,800 visits in 2016

Size: 610.9 acres Figure 4.4: Map of Lake Byllesby Regional Park

Recreation Activities/Facilities: • Boat launch • Cross-country skiing • Fishing and ice fishing • Hiking and nature trails • Picnic areas • Playground • Beach and beach house • Campground

• Mill Towns State Trail Source: Dakota County Planning Trailhead

Master Plan Theme and Future Facilities (updated in 2018): Lakeside Park — a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the Cannon River connects to Goodhue County’s Byllesby County Park and the Cannon Valley Trail. Byllesby Regional Park will be a base for Cannon Valley recreation with trails, water activities, camping, and camper cabins. The 10-year Development Plan emphasizes the east park: lake and lakeside activities, campground expansion, activities that appeal to campers, a splash pad, picnic areas and lakeside trail on Echo Point, Cannon River canoe/kayak launch, and ecological restoration throughout the park. The west park will remain less developed, focusing on natural resource stewardship, basic access, and wayfinding at two trailheads for hiking, nature immersion, exploration, and interpretation. A Mill Towns Trail trailhead, picnic grounds, canoe-in campsites, and bird blinds are planned activities for the west park.

Park-Defining Recreational Activities: Lake-based activities (viewing, boating, swimming, wading), camping, biking, picnicking on the point.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 72 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

LEBANON HILLS REGIONAL PARK Lebanon Hills is in Eagan and Apple Valley Figure 4.5: Lebanon Hills Lake and Woodland adjacent to the Minnesota Zoo. Gently rolling park landscapes include oak woodland, and smaller areas of open prairie, shrubland, floodplain forest, upland hardwoods, and a tamarack bog. The park has 10 lakes larger than 10 acres, as well as dozens of smaller ponds. Deer and other wildlife are abundant in the park. Extensive natural resource management is occurring throughout the park.

Visitation: 635,200 visits in 2016 Size: 1961.9 acres

Recreation Activities and Figure 4.6: Map of Lebanon Hils Regional Park Facilities: • Canoe trail • Cross-country skiing • Interpretive trail • Accessible trail loop • Fishing and ice fishing • Hiking and nature trails • Horseback trails • Mountain biking trails • Picnic areas and playground • Retreat lodge • Visitor Center

• Swimming beach Source: Dakota County Planning • Campground

Master Plan Theme and Future Facilities (updated in 2015): Urban Natural Retreat — sustainably designed, urban natural retreat offers a variety of passive activities, emphasizing trails and programming. A rustic setting of glacial lakes and woods alternates with restored savanna and prairie. Natural resources are emphasized with increased restoration efforts. Major activity centers include the “green” Visitor Center-beach campus, expanded picnic area at Jensen Lake, an extensive mountain bike course, expanded campgrounds with more tent sites, and Camp Sacajawea retreat lodge.

Park-Defining Recreational Activities and Facilities: Primitive woodland and water trails – for hiking, walking, lake loops, canoeing, skiing, skating, riding, mountain biking. Improved trails will include connections between use areas, including from the campground to the Visitor Center. The Visitor Center is the base for outdoor and environmental education and programming activities for the system and is a teaching model for sustainable building design. Large group picnicking occurs at Jensen Lake. Lebanon Hills also offers camping and youth group opportunities.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 73 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

MIESVILLE RAVINE PARK RESERVE Miesville Ravine is in Douglas Township along the Figure 4.7: Miesville Ravine Bluff Prairie County’s southeastern border with Goodhue County. The park is named for a spectacular 200- foot deep ravine, through which Trout Brook flows to the Cannon River. The park includes several bluffs, side ravines, and Cannon River frontage. The landscape is defined as lightly glaciated, characteristic of the high-relief terrain of southeastern Minnesota bluff country and unique in the metro area. The park has a rich natural diversity, with oak forests, open grassy areas, dry rocky hillsides, wet floodplain, and small spring-fed creeks to sections of navigable river. The park has abundant and diverse wildlife populations and a natural stand of white pines near on the west side of the large central ravine. Trout Brook supports a population of brook trout.

Visitation: 27,000 visits in 2016 Figure 4.8: Map of Miesville Ravine Park Reserve Size: 1,846.9 acres

Recreation Activities and Facilities: • Picnic area with rustic shelters, bathrooms • Canoe launch • Hiking trails • Fishing

Master Plan Theme and Future Facilities (2005): Wilderness Park — Miesville Ravine has a minimal human footprint with rustic facilities. The park provides open views, preserves some of the highest quality resources in the Park System, and offers river and stream activities and wilderness experiences (hiking, picnicking, primitive camping). Activity centers include a main trailhead, picnic grounds, rustic stone shelters, and the Cannon River access area. Planned improvements include enhancement to the main trailhead, a new upland trailhead, potential Cannon River event grounds on the east edge of the park (not acquired), and a Source: Dakota County Planning bridge link to the Cannon Valley Trail in Goodhue County.

Park-Defining Recreational Activities: Trails and views, Trout Brook hiking and fishing, Cannon River access, and natural resource appreciation.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 74 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE Spring Lake Park Reserve is on the south shore of the Figure 4.9: Spring Lake Park Reserve Woodland Trail Mississippi River in Nininger Township and Rosemount, on a river stretch that flows west to east. Construction of Lock and Dam No. 2 in the 1930s transformed Spring Lake from a floodplain wetland to a major water body. River terrace topography varies from lower terrace bottomlands in the western park to upper terrace bluffs overlooking Spring Lake in the eastern park. Wooded ravines, oak forest, and grasslands occur throughout the park. Because of its north facing slopes, the park contains rare and unique ecosystems and species. Archaeological sites within the park document 8,000 years of human use of this area. The Science Museum of Minnesota recorded several landmark archaeological discoveries in the park area during the 1950s.

Visitation: 90,300 visits in 2016 Figure 4.10: Map of Spring Lake Park Reserve

Size: 1,110.3 acres

Recreation Activities and Facilities: Sixteen percent of the park has been developed for facilities or trails, well within the 20 percent limit for park reserves.

• Archery trail • Boat launch (MN DNR) • Cross-country skiing • Cultural resource trail (2008) • Hiking and nature trails • Picnic shelters and grounds with Source: Dakota County Planning river views • Playground • Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Center (2007) • Retreat center and group campground • Mississippi River Regional Trail

Master Plan Theme and Future Facilities (updated in 2003): Mississippi River Park — richly varied ecological resources and cultural resources frame well-balanced recreation opportunities that draw on the Mississippi River, history, and the concept of discovery. Major activity centers include a sustainably designed Gathering Center, the Mississippi River Regional Trail, and new general use at the west end of the park. Open landscape areas are suitable for community events.

Park-Defining Recreational Activities: Scenic views of the River valley and rolling farmland, picnicking on Schaar’s Bluff, river views and river access, cultural and natural resource interpretation, trails.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 75 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

THOMPSON COUNTY PARK Thompson County Park is in West St. Paul, in the fully Figure 4.11: Dakota Lodge at Thompson Park developed part of northern Dakota County. The park is named for Thompson Lake, a ten-acre water body with a picturesque shoreline free from urban development. The park is in a hilly portion of the St. Croix Glacial Moraine, with mixed hardwood forest, oak woodland, cattail marsh, grasslands, and open areas along Thompson Lake. The park provides a peaceful, natural setting in an urbanized area. The River to River Regional Greenway Bridge over Trunk Highway 52 connects the park with Kaposia Park and the Mississippi River Regional Trail in South St. Paul.

Visitation: not tracked

Size: 58.1 acres

Recreation Activities and Facilities: • Cross-country ski trails Figure 4.12: Map of Thompson County Park • Thompson Park Activity Center and ISD 197 Older Adult Program Center • Hiking and bicycling trails • Picnic area and shelter • Playground • Fishing Pier • Segment of the River to River Regional Greenway

Master Plan Theme and Future Facilities (2005): Urban Oasis — a park for all seasons that provides a stage for community life and celebration, in the most densely populated and most culturally diverse area of the County. Thompson Park is the only park in the system that delivers a highly visible “quick walk” and a paved bike trail that connects well to places outside the park. The master plan includes a designed, pastoral landscape in active areas that transitions to woodland towards the south. The master plan brings more activities and uses in small but varied settings that are Source: Dakota County Planning well connected by the park trail system.

Major activity centers currently include a shelter-lake trail-pier-parking lot complex, the bike bridge to Kaposia Park, Dakota Lodge, and the playground off the Lodge. Dakota Lodge is well-used for senior activities, meetings, and celebrations. New activity centers will include an expanded event and social area near the lodge, a skating pond, and an art walk with symbolic farm ruins.

Park-Defining Recreational Activities: Picnicking, group gatherings, events at Dakota Lodge (public and private), convenient quick walk around the lake.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 76 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

WHITETAIL WOODS REGIONAL PARK Dakota County’s newest park, 458-acre Whitetail Woods Figure 4.13: Camper Cabin at Whitetail Woods Regional Park, is located in Empire Township in the center of Dakota County, one mile north of the Vermillion River. The park opened in 2014 and includes a variety of trails, camping, picnicking, and nature play areas. Extensive natural resources restoration is taking place throughout the park.

Whitetail Woods is bordered by the Vermillion Highlands Modified Wildlife Management Area to the east and the Vermillion River Wildlife and Aquatic Management areas to the south. The University of Minnesota’s UMORE Park is located to the northeast and east of the park.

Visitation: 54,900 visits in 2016

Size: 458.8 acres

Recreation Activities and Facilities: Figure 4.14: Map of Whitetail Woods Regional Park • Camper cabins • Nature trails for hiking, geocaching, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing • Nature play • Picnic shelter and grounds • Amphitheater

Master Plan Theme and Future Facilities (2012): Cultural Learning and Retreat Center: The 2012 Master Plan emphasizes unique and signature facilities, such as integrated food production, public art, and camper cabins. The park will include nature and artistic play elements catered toward youth as well as cultural interpretation, extensive trails, and unique camping facilities.

Other planned facilities include an off-leash dog area, a disc golf course, a visitor center, and picnic areas.

Source: Dakota County Planning

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 77 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

DAKOTA WOODS DOG PARK Dakota Woods Dog Park is in Empire Township, south of County Road 46 on Blaine Avenue, adjacent to the University of Minnesota’s UMore Park. Dakota County’s first off-leash dog area began as a pilot study in 2004. The Dog Park has proven to be a popular amenity. Residents have expressed appreciation for its comparatively large size, woodland trails, open play area, and the lack of open water (dogs do not get muddy). Canines and People Ensuring Running Space (CAPERs), a volunteer group, has assisted with ongoing maintenance of the area. Because of its overall success as a self-supporting facility, Dakota Woods recently was approved as an ongoing feature of the Dakota County Park System. The Whitetail Woods Regional Park Master Plan recommended moving the Dog Park to Whitetail Woods. Additional sites for off-leash areas will be evaluated within the park system. Visitation: not counted. 4,174 passes (including annual and daily use) were sold in 2016.

Size: 14.4 acres

Recreation Activities and Facilities: • Open play area • Parking lot • Picnicking area • Walking trails

COUNTY PARK CONSERVATION AREAS

Dakota County recently has acquired Figure 4.15: Stream Restoration on South Creek CPCA smaller parcels of land with multiple public benefits as a new type of management unit, County Park Conservation Area (CPCA). CPCAs protect wildlife habitat and water quality, provide recreational opportunities such hiking and fishing and are often located within planned Regional Greenway corridors. CPCAs range in size from one acre to more than 60 acres.

Cannon River: 1.4 acres

North Creek: 4.4 acres

South Creek: 24.4 acres

Vermillion River: 61.8 acres

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 78 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 4.16: Dakota County Planned Regional Greenway System

Source: Dakota County Office of Planning, 2018

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 79 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

BIG RIVERS REGIONAL TRAIL/MINNESOTA RIVER GREENWAY The Big Rivers Regional Trail (BRRT) spans 4.5 miles from Lilydale Road in Lilydale to I-494 in Eagan. In Mendota Heights, the trail connects to a County bikeway at Pilot Knob Road and a Civilian Conservation Corps scenic overlook. A connection to the new I-35E Bridge in Lilydale was built in 2004, with a link to the River to River Regional Greenway in Valley Park (Mendota Heights). The City of St. Paul, working with Dakota County and the National Park Service, built a link in 2005 that extends from BRRT northward through Lilydale Regional Park, allowing BRRT riders to continue their trip to Harriet Island in downtown St. Paul.

The BRRT highlights significant natural and historical features, with scenic views of the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers confluence, high limestone bluffs, floodplain, woodlands, and prairie. Built on the bed of one of the oldest railroads in Minnesota, the trail passes many historical and cultural features, including railroad structures and landmarks in the historic town of Mendota, one of Minnesota’s first territorial cities. Historic points of interest nearby include the Sibley House, Faribault House, St. Peter’s Church, and a WPA work camp. BRRT also demonstrates change over time, passing by modern businesses and industrial land uses.

A Cultural Resources Interpretive Plan was prepared for the Minnesota River and BRRT in 2017.

Visitation: 135,500 visits in 2016

Recreation Activities and Facilities:

• Parking areas • Trail activities: hiking, bicycling, and inline skating • Scenic overlooks with benches • Interpretation

Figure 4.17: Big Rivers Trail View

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 80 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

MISSISSIPPI RIVER REGIONAL TRAIL The Mississippi River Regional Trail (MRRT) is a planned 25-mile route to connect the South St. Paul Riverfront Trail through Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount, Nininger Township, and Hastings. The MRRT will provide access to the Pine Bend Bluffs Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) and Spring Lake Park Reserve. An Interpretive Plan was prepared for MRRT in 2014. New trailhead facilities have been constructed at the Inver Grove Heights city park at the Swing Bridge and the SNA in Inver Grove Heights.

Visitation: 148,400 visits in 2016

Recreation Activities and Facilities: • Parking, trailhead areas, and scenic overlooks with benches • Trail activities: hiking, bicycling, and inline skating

Figure 4.18: Mississippi River Regional Trail View

RIVER TO RIVER GREENWAY REGIONAL TRAIL Formerly the North Urban Regional Trail, the River to River Greenway covers eight miles of northern Dakota County through South St. Paul, West St. Paul, and Mendota Heights. The City of South St. Paul built a segment through Kaposia Park with a pedestrian bridge over Concord Boulevard to access the Mississippi River Regional Trail. Another pedestrian-bicycle bridge over US Hwy 52 connects Kaposia Park to Thompson County Park. The segment along TH 110 from Dodd Road to Charlton Street was constructed in 2007 and passes through Henry Sibley High School property. Other portions of the River to River Greenway currently exist as city park trails or bikeways.

Visitation: 87,600 visits in 2016

Recreation Activities and Facilities: • Parking area • Trail activities: hiking, bicycling, inline skating

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 81 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

ADDITIONAL PLANNED GREENWAYS Short sections of the Mendota to Lebanon Greenway and the North Creek Greenway are operational as of early 2018.

Lake Marion Greenway Regional Trail (RT): The Lake Marion Greenway travels 20 miles from the Minnesota River to downtown Farmington through residential and commercial areas in Burnsville, Savage, Lakeville, Credit River Township and Farmington. The Lake Marion Greenway links several natural areas of significance, including the Minnesota River, Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve, Ritter Farm Park, Lake Marion and the South Creek of the Vermillion River. The Dakota County Board of Commissioners adopted the master plan for this greenway in 2013.

Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway RT: The Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway spans 8.5 miles from The Village at Mendota Heights to Lebanon Hills Regional Park, passing through residential and commercial areas in Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights and Eagan. The greenway links a variety of destinations, including Lebanon Hills Regional Park, neighborhood parks in Mendota Heights and Eagan, office and retail hubs in Mendota Heights and Eagan, schools and community parks. The County Board adopted the Greenway Master Plan in 2013.

Minnesota River Greenway RT: The Minnesota River Greenway travels 17 miles through Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Mendota and Lilydale before landing at St. Paul’s Lilydale Regional Park, where trails continue to Harriet Island and downtown St. Paul. This corridor is part of the larger Minnesota Valley State Trail corridor planned by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources that will travel from Le Sueur to St. Paul. This greenway also includes the Big Rivers Regional Trail from Mendota Heights to St. Paul. The County Board adopted the Master Plan for this greenway in 2011.

North Creek Greenway RT: This 14-mile greenway connects Lebanon Hills Regional Park to the Vermillion Highlands Recreation Research and Wildlife Management Area. From Lebanon Hills Regional Park to downtown Farmington, the surrounding landscape is suburban. From Lakeville’s East Lake Park to downtown Farmington, the greenway has a more natural character and follows North Creek. From downtown Farmington to the Vermillion River Modified Wildlife Management Area, the greenway follows the Vermillion River through the surrounding rural landscape. The County Board adopted the Greenway Master Plan in 2011.

Rosemount Greenway RT: The Rosemount Greenway is almost entirely within the city of Rosemount, winding through large lot suburban and rural development patterns in the northwest to the historic and recently developed neighborhoods around downtown, and then eastward through agricultural and industrial areas to the Mississippi River. Future residential development in Rosemount will alter the existing character of the mostly rural landscape, transforming it to a more suburban character. Three miles of the greenway travels on Flint Hills Resources lands. This segment of the greenway is expected to retain its open, rural feel and views of the Flint Hills refinery into the future. Destinations linked by the greenway include Lebanon Hills Regional Park, downtown Rosemount, and Spring Lake Regional Park Reserve. The County Board adopted the Greenway Master Plan in 2012.

Vermillion Highlands Greenway: The 13-mile Vermillion Highlands Greenway connects Lebanon Hills Regional Park to the Vermillion River through the communities of Eagan, Rosemount, and Empire, also connecting local parks in Rosemount, Dakota County Technical College, UMore Park, Whitetail Woods Regional Park, Vermillion Highlands Recreation Research Wildlife Management Area, and the Vermillion

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 82 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

River Wildlife and Aquatic Management Areas. Much of the surrounding land is expected to develop, heightening the importance of the greenway connection. The County Board adopted the Greenway Master Plan in 2012.

Rich Valley Greenway Regional Trail (formerly Lebanon Hills – Mississippi Regional Trail Search Corridor) The Rich Valley Greenway travels five miles between Lebanon Hills Regional Park in southeastern Eagan and the Mississippi River Regional Trail in Inver Grove Heights. Other destinations connected by this greenway include Lakeside Park in Eagan, St. Thomas Becket Church, the Rich Valley Athletic Complex and the Pine Bend Bluffs Scientific and Natural Area. The master plan was adopted in 2017.

Mississippi River Trail Hastings to Red Wing: Goodhue County, working with the Parks and Trails Council of Minnesota and Dakota County, prepared a master plan for this portion of the Mississippi River Trail that would connect Hastings to Red Wing, and become a portion of the national Mississippi River Trail (MRT) from the River’s headwaters to the Gulf of Mexico. This trail potentially could be designated as either a regional trail or a state trail. Further information is available at: https://co.goodhue.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/10712/Hastings-to-Red-Wing-Trail-Master- Plan?bidId=

REGIONAL TRAIL SEARCH CORRIDORS (RTSC): Chub Creek Greenway RTSC: This search corridor generally follows Chub Creek from the Vermillion River in Farmington, through Eureka and Greenvale townships, connecting to the Mill Towns State Trail near Waterford and Sciota townships. The Mill Towns State Trail is proposed to extend to Lake Byllesby Regional Park.

Elko New Market – Blakeley – Doyle Kennefick RTSC: This search corridor will connect a planned regional trail in Scott County to the Chub Creek Greenway Regional Trail. The Scott County portion of the route links to Blakely Bluffs and Doyle Kennefick regional parks.

Lebanon Hills – Big Rivers RTSC (also referenced as Eagan Greenway RTSC): This search corridor connects Lebanon Hills Regional Park to the Minnesota River Greenway through the City of Eagan.

Lebanon Hills – Lake Marion RTSC (also referenced as McAndrews Greenway RTSC): This route connects Lebanon Hills Regional Park to Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve, passing through Apple Valley and Burnsville and will also link to the Lake Marion Greenway in Lakeville.

Vermilion River Greenway RTSC: The Vermillion River is envisioned as having a continuous greenway over the long term. This search area would provide the connection to existing trails in Empire Township (east of Farmington) to the City of Hastings, where it will connect to City trails along the River.

Other Outdoor Recreation Opportunities In addition parks and greenways operated by Dakota County, there are many city, regional, state and federal lands within and adjacent to Dakota County that add recreational opportunities and protect valued natural areas (see Figure 4.2). The organizations that manage these areas include existing and potential partners for collaborating on shared goals for parks and open space.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 83 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

CITY PARKS: The cities within Dakota County generally have well-developed park systems. Local parks often are designed to serve local neighborhood or community needs and many offer a wide range of active recreational uses, such as playgrounds and athletic facilities. Some city parks offer natural settings and nature-based activities similar to County parks.

REGIONAL PARKS (other agencies): Regional parks managed by other entities offer nature-based recreational experiences comparable to Dakota County Parks. Two regional parks lie partly within the County: Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve (Three Rivers Parks District) and Lilydale Regional Park (City of St. Paul Parks Department).

Lilydale Regional Park: This 636-acre park along the Mississippi River encompasses bluffs, ravines, floodplain forest, and Pickerel Lake. Lilydale Regional Park is owned and operated by the City of St. Paul, although the southern 349 acres are located within Dakota County. The area historically was platted and developed as part of the City of Lilydale, but repeated flooding events resulted in vacating the flood prone parcels in the 1960’s and subsequent dedication of the area as parkland. Recreation includes picnicking, hiking, bicycling, fossil hunting, historic interpretation, bird watching, wildlife observation, boating, and canoeing. Lilydale Regional Park borders two additional City of St. Paul regional parks: Cherokee Heights Regional Park along the bluffline and Harriet Island Regional Park at its northern end. Lilydale Regional Park’s multi-use trail connects to the Big Rivers Regional Trail at its southwestern end, and to the Harriet Island Regional Park trails at its northeastern end.

Murphy Hanrehan Park Reserve: The 2,786-acre park reserve is located on the Scott-Dakota County line in northeastern Scott Count within the City of Savage and Credit River Township in Scott County, and 175 acres in the City of Burnsville in Dakota County. Murphy-Hanrehan offers one of the richest opportunities for geological interpretation in the metropolitan area. The north and east areas have dense oak forest, while south and western areas have more open, rolling topography. Because of its significant migratory bird habitat, Murphy-Hanrehan includes an Important Birding Area recognized by the Audubon Society. Recreation activities include hiking, picnicking, birding and wildlife observation, mountain biking, horseback riding, an off-leash dog area, and a wide range of educational programs.

STATE-MANAGED AREAS: The State of Minnesota also operates parks, management areas, and special recreational destinations within or near Dakota County, with a similar mission of preserving natural areas and providing natural resource-based educational and recreational opportunities.

Minnesota Zoological Gardens: Located in Apple Valley, the Zoo’s offers walking trails for viewing a variety of plants and animals in various natural settings, a seasonal family farm, an environmental education center, a marine education center, outdoor amphitheater, and picnic areas.

Aquatic Management Areas (AMA): Gores Pool #3 AMA: The 162-acre Gores Pool #3 AMA is located adjacent to the Gores Pool #3 WMA in the northeastern corner of Hastings. The AMA includes Mississippi and Vermillion river shoreline, floodplain and upland areas. Recreational uses include fishing, non-motorized travel, wildlife observation, hunting, and trapping.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 84 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Lake Marion AMA: The 6.2-acre Lake Marion AMA is located on the southwestern side of Lake Marion in the City of Lakeville.

Orchard Lake AMA: The 4.3-acre Orchard Lake AMA is located on the south side of Orchard Lake in the City of Lakeville and is incorporated in the city’s Orchard Lake Conservation Area.

South Branch Vermillion River AMA: This 62-acre AMA is located west of US Highway 52, south of County Highway 66 in Empire Township. It includes a section the South Branch of the Vermillion River. Recreational use includes trout fishing, non-motorized travel, wildlife observation, hunting, and trapping.

Vermillion River AMA: The Vermillion River AMA is comprised of seven units totaling 460 acres in Empire Township. It includes several, non-contiguous sections of the Vermillion River which is a designated trout stream. Recreational uses include angling, non-motorized travel, wildlife observation, hunting and trapping.

Scientific and Natural Areas (SNA): Chimney Rock SNA: Located in Marshan Township west of County Road 89 and south of 205th Street East, the 76-acre Chimney Rock SNA protects a unique geological feature. Nearly 30 feet tall and 10 feet wide at the base, Chimney Rock is a castellated, bedrock pillar composed of St. Peter Sandstone. The pillar’s cap is harder and more resistant to weathering than the rest of the formation. Additional outcroppings of the St. Peter Sandstone are visible in nearby hillsides. South-facing slopes in this area have bedrock bluff prairie grading to sand-gravel prairie. Rolling terrain areas are predominantly pin–bur oak woodland.

Hastings Sand Coulee SNA: Located south of Hastings, the Hastings Sand Coulee SNA consists of three parcels totaling 263 acres. Two parcels are between County Highway 91 and State Highway 316 and one parcel is located adjacent to the west side of State Highway 316. The site is named for the Hastings Sand Coulee, a 2.5 mile-long valley once occupied by a glacial stream that now supports the most significant dry prairie in Dakota County. A tributary to the Vermillion River meanders through the SNA. High quality native plant communities include dry sand-gravel prairie, mesic prairie, oak woodland and oak forest. The SNA provides critical habitat for a number of rare plant, insect, reptile, and bird species.

Hastings SNA: The Hastings SNA consists of two parcels totaling 68 acres. The northwest 26-acre parcel on Ravenna Trail is in the Vermillion/Mississippi River floodplain and consists of floodplain forest and emergent marsh. Silver maple dominates the forest, with green ash and American elm. The 43-acre southeast unit located along Ravenna Trail and State Highway 291 is dominated by mesic oak forest, with old-growth red oak, sugar maple, and basswood on steep north-facing bluffs and bluff tops. Sugar- maple basswood forest covers a small section of the mid-slope, and emergent marsh, pond and floodplain forest cover low-lying areas.

A wide diversity of plant species has been documented on this site. Talus slopes and steep escarpments of dolomitic limestone provide habitat for mosses, lichens, and liverworts. The site topography is varied, with 170 feet of elevation difference across the site. During major flood events, the Mississippi River floods into the Lower Vermillion River, reversing the flow of water and flooding the entire north parcel of the SNA. This SNA's bluffs, spring-fed pools, river shoreline and relatively small parcels fragmented by roads make it vulnerable to disturbance. Visitors are encouraged to avoid the steeper areas of the site in the interest of protecting these fragile habitats.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 85 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Pine Bend Bluffs SNA: The Pine Bend Bluffs SNA is located on the east side of US Highway 52 and is accessible from 111th Street in Inver Grove Heights. This SNA is one of the least disturbed sites along the river in the Twin Cities, with spectacular views from 200-foot high bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River. Dry to mesic oak forests dominate the site's rugged terrain, with stands of white pine on north- facing slopes, dry prairies on south- and east-facing slopes, and black ash seepage swamp at the river's edge. Pine Bend Bluffs SNA provides critical habitat for a number of rare plant and wildlife species. The Mississippi River Regional Trail passes along the SNA and includes a small visitor parking lot.

State Parks: Fort Snelling State Park: Fort Snelling State park was established in 1962 at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers and includes Historic Fort Snelling which dates back to 1820. The majority of the park preserves the bottomland forest, rivers, wet meadows, and backwater lakes below the river bluffs. An interpretive center was opened in 1974, the first year-round interpretive center in the Minnesota state park system. Even without a campground, this is the most visited state park in Minnesota most years. Of the 2,459 acres comprising the park, 1,907 mostly undeveloped acres are located within Dakota County.

State Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) Chub Lake WMA: The Chub Lake WMA is located on the south end of Chub Lake in Eureka Township. The rolling landscape of this 203-acre WMA consists mostly of oak woodland, with some old field and grassland areas as well as a small portion of Chub Lake. The WMA adjoins the large expanse of oak woodland that surrounds Chub Lake. The purpose of this WMA is to preserve and enhance the high quality oak woodland within its borders, as well as a portion of Chub Lake shoreline.

An unpaved township road (Grenada Avenue) provides access to a parking lot and an informal water access point (roadside parking is prohibited). Game species include deer, small game, upland forest birds, pheasants, waterfowl, turkey, and doves. Gores Pool #3 WMA: Gores Pool #3 is located in the Mississippi River/Vermillion River Bottoms east and south of Hastings and extends into Goodhue County. This 7,049-acre WMA consists entirely of Mississippi and Vermillion River flood plain forests, islands and backwater marshes, of which 3,364 acres are located within Dakota County. A significant portion of this WMA is leased from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The purpose of this WMA is to preserve and provide recreation in a large, unbroken area of floodplain forest, as well as preserving waterfowl and furbearer habitat. There are two public water access sites with parking along County highway 54 and 68. Game species include deer, small game, forest upland birds, pheasants, waterfowl, turkey, and doves. A designated Migratory Waterfowl Refuge near the south end of North Lake is off limits to all activities.

Hampton Woods WMA: Located in northwestern Hampton Township and Northeaster Castle Rock Township, east of County Highway 79 and south of State Highway 50, this 197-acre WMA includes one of the largest, high-quality, contiguous forests in southern Dakota County. The majority of the land is mesic oak forest with a high diversity of tree, shrub and forb species. Topography is gently rolling with well-drained, sandy loam. Recent restoration efforts have removed extensive areas of invasive buckthorn to create improved habitat for many wildlife species. This WMA is open for archery deer hunting and spring/fall turkey hunting. Game species include deer, small game, upland forest birds, turkey, and doves.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 86 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Hastings WMA: The 40-acre Hastings is located adjacent to Hastings Sand Coulee SNA, east of State Highway 316, north of Tuttle Drive in Marshan Township. Game species include deer, small game, upland forest birds, and pheasants.

Mud Creek WMA: Mud Creek WMA is located on the south side of County Road 96, between Jamaica and Idalia avenues in Greenvale Township, this 156-acre WMA encompasses a portion of an open-water marsh and surrounding uplands that have been restored to native prairie. The WMA offers wildlife viewing opportunities especially waterfowl and water birds. The area is managed to provide habitat for grassland and wetland bird species as well as deer and small game. Game species include deer, small game, pheasants, waterfowl, turkey, and doves.

Spring Lake Islands WMA: Spring Lake Islands WMA is located in Nininger Township and Rosemount. This 765-acre WMA is part of a backwater area off the main channel of the Mississippi River known as Spring Lake and consists of a several islands surrounded by shallow water channels. Submerged large stump fields are a challenge to navigation. The WMA can be accessed from a small boat launch within Spring Lake Park Reserve at the end of Hilary Path, off of County Road 42. Activities include hunting, fishing, trapping, bird watching and nature photography. Game species include deer, small game, forest upland birds, and waterfowl.

Vermillion Highlands Research, Recreation and WMA: Vermillion Highlands Research, Recreation and WMA is located in Empire Township, south of County Highway 46 west of County Road 81. This 2,838- acre WMA was created by the State Legislature and the Governor as part of negotiations to fund the University of Minnesota (U of M) outdoor stadium in 2006. The site history includes development as the Gopher Ordinance Plant, which went into production manufacturing smokeless gunpowder near the end of World War II. Remnant infrastructure from these operations remains on the site.

Although the U of M continues to own the land until 20141 when it will be deed to the DNR, a steering committee comprised of representatives from the U of M, DNR, Dakota County and Empire Township cooperatively manages the area to provide recreation opportunities for the public and agricultural and environmental research. The Lone Rock Trail offers opportunities for horseback riding through a gently rolling landscape, and is groomed for cross country skiing. The WMA is adjacent to Whitetail Woods Regional Park. Portions of the WMA are open to hunting of certain species throughout the year. Game species include deer, pheasants, waterfowl, and turkey.

Vermillion River WMA: The Vermillion River WMA is adjacent to the south side of the Vermillion Highlands Research Recreation and WMA along the Vermillion River in Empire Township. Most of this 1,493-acre WMA was intensively farmed in the past, although the central area was not been farmed and has remnant prairie species. Significant portions of the WMA have now been restored to native prairie. Recreation opportunities include hunting, fishing, birding, and nature photography. The Vermillion River offers good trout fishing and special fishing regulations are posted at the access. Game species include deer, small game, upland forest birds, pheasants, waterfowl, turkey, and doves.

FEDERALLY-MANAGED AREAS: National Parks: The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) was established as a unit of the National Park Service by Public Law 100-696 in 1998. The MNRRA includes 72 miles of the Mississippi River and four miles of the Minnesota River. It functions as an overlay district spanning about 54,000 acres of public and private land and water in five Minnesota counties, stretching from the cities of Dayton and

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 87 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Ramsey to just south of Hastings. The MNRRA was established by Congress to (1) protect, preserve, and enhance the significant values of the Mississippi River corridor through the Twin Cities, (2) encourage coordination of federal, state, and local programs, and (3) provide a management framework to assist the state of Minnesota and local governments in the development and implementation of integrated resource management programs and to ensure orderly public and private development in the area.

National Wildlife Refuges: Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is a greenbelt of large marshes stretching 70 miles along the Minnesota River from Henderson to Fort Snelling State Park. The refuge provides habitat for large numbers of migratory waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife species threatened by development, and offers environmental education, wildlife recreational opportunities, and interpretive programming. Of the 14,000 acres of protected land, 1,635 acres are located within Dakota County.

Waterfowl Production Areas: The Soberg Waterfowl Production Area This 73-acre area is located in the southwest corner of Lakeville. Recreational uses include fishing, non-motorized travel, wildlife observation, hunting, and trapping.

Plans Completed Since 2008 The following plans are referenced in this Comprehensive Plan and can be viewed online to find more detailed information on Dakota County parks and greenway facilities. COUNTY–WIDE: • Dakota County Park System Plan, 2008 • Dakota County Natural Resource Management System Plan, 2017 • Dakota County Park Visitor Services Plan, 2017 PARKS: • Whitetail Woods Regional Park Master Plan, 2012 • Lebanon Hills Regional Park Master Plan, 2015 • Lake Byllesby Regional Park Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan, 2018

REGIONAL GREENWAYS: • North Creek Greenway Master Plan, 2011 • Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan, 2011 • Lake Marion Greenway Master Plan, 2013 • Rosemount Greenway Master Plan, 2012 • Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Master Plan, 2013 • Minnesota River Greenway Interpretation Plan, 2017 • Vermillion Highlands Greenway Master Plan, 2012 • Rich Valley Greenway Master Plan (pending approval) Implementation Chapter Six provides implementation information for Dakota County Parks, and includes a summary of the 2018–2022 Capital Improvement Plan.

Chapter 4: Park System, Page 88 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

CHAPTER 5: LAND USE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Purpose and Background Dakota County has a limited role in land use regulation and development, exercising its land use authority in rural shoreland and floodplain areas only. The County has a significant role in managing and regulating natural resources. This chapter sets forth Dakota County’s broad vision and goals for land use and natural resources and also provides a framework for County official controls that regulate areas related to land and natural resource use.

Topics addressed by this chapter include: • Land Use • Natural Resources (land and other resources) • Water Management • Water Supply • Wastewater • Solid Waste • Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan

Land Use and Official Controls GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR LAND USE Sustainability Sustainable land use means that people live comfortably in a friendly, clean, and healthy community, and growth occurs at a sustainable rate, without placing environmental, economic, and social burdens on current and future generations. Land is used efficiently, conserving energy and natural resources.

Connectedness Land use patterns allow people to easily move between neighborhoods, provide jobs near housing, convenient shopping, and services, and recognize the function and importance of natural systems.

Collaboration Public agencies and the private sector work together toward shared land use and economic development goals. Transportation corridors and employment zones are planned across municipal boundaries. Collaborative efforts replace past practices where individual government units competed against each another for economic development at the expense of regional citizens’ interests.

Economic Vitality Opportunities for economic growth are cultivated by attracting a well-trained, diverse, and educated labor force. Land uses are planned to accommodate high-paying employers in growth industries that help our region compete nationally and internationally. Inter-relationships among transportation investments, telecommunication systems, and other public infrastructure are recognized and coordinated with economic development goals.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 89 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Growing and Nurturing People A variety of housing choices, neighborhoods, and employment exist to meet the needs of people of all ages, abilities, incomes, and backgrounds. Land use patterns provide opportunities for people to live healthy, stimulating, and fulfilling lives.

LAND USE CONTEXT Population, household, and jobs forecasts Continuing Growth — between 2016 and 2040, Dakota County is expected to add 96,218 Figure 5.1: Dakota County Population Growth and people (23 percent growth) and 44,060 Projections*: 1970–2040 households (27 percent growth). More Source: Metropolitan Council information on projected demographics and 600,000 growth are available in Chapter 1 of this plan. 500,000 Jobs are expected to grow steadily, with an estimated 49,406 more positions (26 percent 400,000 growth) available by 2040. 300,000 The housing market appears to be recovering strongly from the 2008–2012 recession, 200,000 although slower population growth and changing development patterns make a return 100,000 to the pre-recession land-consumption rate of 2,000 acres to 3,000 acres a year unlikely given 0 the County’s population growth projections. 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020* 2030* 2040*

Table 5.1: Population, Household, and Job Forecasts 2010 2016 Estimate 2020 2030 2040 Population 398,552 418,432 436,570 475,370 514,650 Households 152,060 160,890 171,240 188,220 204,950 Jobs 170,192 186,894 203,030 219,360 235,800 Source: Metropolitan Council

Existing land use Dakota County is a rapidly suburbanizing county south of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The County is bordered on the north by the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. Freeway bridges link Dakota County’s commuters to Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the I-494 employment area. Former agricultural land in the north transitioned from farm fields to bedroom suburbs, and more recently to a more mature form of suburbia characterized by abundant shopping and dispersed employment locations.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 90 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 5.2: 2016 Land Use

Source: Metropolitan Council

Close to 400,000 people are concentrated in the urbanized third of the County. The other two-thirds remain primarily agricultural and are home to roughly 4.4 percent of Dakota County’s population.

Thrive MSP 2040 Regional Community Designations Urban Areas West St. Paul and South St. Paul are extensions of St. Paul’s earliest streetcar suburbs. Development is compact because it predates freeways and widespread auto use. Many homes were built before World War II. Metropolitan Council’s Urban community designations within Dakota County’s developed cities include:

Urban Center: neighborhoods are conducive to transit and walking. Streets are generally gridded, narrow, and interconnected; sidewalks are common; and buildings are oriented toward pedestrians,

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 91 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

with smaller scale commercial uses often within walking distance. Planning areas of interest include redevelopment, reinvestment, and brownfield remediation.

Suburban Areas Dakota County’s suburban areas developed more recently or are still developing and include Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Farmington, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Lilydale, Mendota Heights, and Rosemount. Some of these cities once were agricultural centers (Farmington, Hastings, Lakeville, and Rosemount) but are now incorporated into the larger suburban area. Metropolitan Council’s Suburban designations include:

Suburban: communities developed in the 1980s and into the early 1990s, often along freeway corridors. Densities are typically lower than in the County’s urban communities. Current planning interests include redevelopment for greater density, walkability, community gathering, and commercial development, as well as transit-related development.

Suburban Edge: areas experienced significant residential growth in the 1990s through the 2010s. At least 40 percent of the land in these cities is developed, but land remains for future development. Primary planning concerns include protecting water supplies and preserving open space.

Emerging Suburban Edge: includes portions of cities with a historic downtown center and townships with areas in early stages of development. Planning interests include green field development (integrating natural resource preservation into planning before development) and orderly growth.

Rural Areas Dakota County’s townships are dominated by agricultural land use, with density restrictions of one dwelling unit per 40 acres. Rural cities have small populations and are closely tied to surrounding agricultural land. A few townships such as Ravenna, Nininger, Marshan, Empire, and Eureka have higher zoning densities in areas and have experienced limited residential development pressure. Metropolitan Council’s Rural designations in Dakota County include:

Rural Centers: local commercial, employment, and residential activity centers serving rural areas, such as parts of Vermillion and Hampton.

Diversified Rural: farm and non-farm land uses including very large-lot residential, clustered housing, hobby farms, and agriculture. This pattern protects land for rural lifestyles today and potential development after 2040. This category includes Ravenna and rural cities such as Miesville and Coates.

Rural Residential: areas with large lot residential patterns and no plans to provide urban services, such as wastewater treatment. Considered a barrier to orderly provision of urbanized infrastructure, this pattern is generally discouraged within the Region. Rural residential areas can accommodate minimal growth and include portions of Inver Grove Heights and Sunfish Lake.

Agricultural: areas with prime agricultural soils that are planned and zoned for long-term agricultural use, which supports the Region’s agricultural economy. The agricultural area of Dakota County includes all or part of twelve townships, more than half of the County’s total land area.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 92 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 5.3: Thrive MSP 2040 Regional Community Designations

Source: Metropolitan Council

Land use analysis Dakota County’s predominant land use is agriculture in the south and single family residential in the north. As of 2016, Dakota County had 62,890 acres (16.7 percent) of single and multi-family residential land, up approximately 2,500 acres since 2010 (Source: Metropolitan Council). Land consumption for development has slowed from 2,000–3,000 acres per year during the 1980s through the early 2000s to less than 1,000 acres per year between 2010 and 2016. This is likely due to the economic downturn, slower population growth, and changing development patterns.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 93 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Developed and undeveloped land in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) The MUSA defines where urban services (e.g., sewer and water) are provided and is intended to keep development from leapfrogging into agricultural areas. Development outside of the MUSA requires on- site well and septic systems. About 29 percent of Dakota County’s total area was within the 2010 MUSA. The following table shows total acres within the MUSA for 2020, 2030, and 2040. The MUSA 2020 line includes 7,471 acres of land currently zoned as agricultural or sand and aggregate mining.

Table 5.2: Acreages in the MUSA, 2010–2040 MUSA Total Acres Percent of County Agricultural or Mining Acres (in Boundary In MUSA Land Area in MUSA 2016) in MUSA 2010 109,663.4 29 2020 112,906.0 30 7,471.0 2030 116,212.1 31 8,696.4 2040 122,478.7 33 13,000.7

Figure 5.4: Wastewater System Long-Term Service Areas

Source: Metropolitan Council

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 94 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

FUTURE LAND USE Land use decisions in Dakota County are made by cities and townships through their zoning and land use plans, as influenced by regional agencies. Dakota County does not have land use authority in the cities and does not exercise its land use authority in townships, except in rural floodplain and shoreland areas.

City and township zoning/land use plans Cities and townships in Dakota County independently administer zoning and comprehensive planning land use controls. Each city and township makes its decisions to build a tax base, respond to the land market, reduce conflicts between adjacent land uses, and reflect the community’s vision. The challenge for Dakota County is to look at the collective impact of these individual planning processes, and evaluate if they will affect the delivery of County services and coordination of multi-agency plans. The following map shows major city-identified initiatives for development and redevelopment projects in their communities, which were discussed during the DC2040 community engagement process. Individual city comprehensive plans should be consulted for further information on all planned land use changes.

Figure 5.5: City-Identified Major Projects in 2040 Comprehensive Plans

Source: HKGi

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 95 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

County land use forecasts Dakota County’s land use forecast attempts to predict where development will occur over the next 20 years given existing trends and future expectations. This forecast was created based on information gathered by the Metropolitan Council from local plans. Dakota County’s land use forecasts will need to be revised following completion of the cities’ and townships’ comprehensive plans.

Figure 5.6: Land Use Forecast 2030

Source: Metropolitan Council

Note: Because Dakota County does not administer land use controls, this map will be updated based on the 2040 round of comprehensive plans from Dakota County communities.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 96 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

KEY ISSUES AND TRENDS: Dakota County’s population and communities continue to change. Some of the priority challenges and trends for the future include:

• Population growth will continue. • An aging population may not be able to age in place in their current housing and community due to physical limitations and health needs. • The County developed with auto-dependent land use patterns and has a growing population that is not able to drive (seniors/aging population, people with disabilities, and households without a car). • Increases in obesity and chronic disease related to sedentary lifestyles are related in part to development patterns that lack opportunities for walking and outdoor physical activity. • Ongoing development places pressure on critical natural resources, such as drinking water supplies. Redevelopment can be difficult due to land ownership patterns, costs, and brownfields but also can provide major opportunities to meet the public’s changing needs.

LAND USE GOALS The following goals summarize actions the County can take in supporting orderly and sustainable land use patterns, using a variety of implementation roles, as shown on the diagram.

Goal 5.1: Support and encourage orderly development.

Objectives: 1. Support land use patterns that are compatible with the Metropolitan Council’s Thrive MSP 2040 and local comprehensive plans. 2. Review city, township, and regional plans for compatibility with County plans and potential impact on County services or facilities. 3. Support local planning for transitional areas through timely provision of County facilities which supports planned urbanization and preserving rural areas. 4. Support local city and township long range planning for orderly annexation or incorporation. 5. Assist redevelopment efforts through the County’s Environmental Assessment and Remediation program (brownfields).

Goal 5.2: Support land use and transportation options that create places where people can live without an automobile.

Objectives: 1. Encourage land use patterns that provide alternatives to automobile use. 2. Support city land use planning efforts to create walkable areas along regional transit corridors and station locations.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 97 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

DAKOTA COUNTY OFFICIAL CONTROLS AND LAND USE Dakota County has played a limited role in administering land use controls. Providing transportation and protecting the natural environment will continue as the County’s primary concern with land use patterns. Dakota County administers the following ordinances for the purposes of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Dakota County and to protect the natural resources of the County.

Shoreland and Floodplain Zoning: Ordinance Number 50 The County retains zoning authority in unincorporated areas of the County but does not exercise this authority except in rural floodplain and shoreland areas. Ordinance 50 regulates land subdivision, use, and development of shoreland and floodplain areas to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, to protect and preserve the outstanding values of rivers and streams, to conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and to provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. The County has also elected jurisdiction to enforce the State’s buffer law county-wide. The law is enforced through Ordinance 50, requiring 50-foot wide permanent buffers on all Public Waters and 16.5-foot wide permanent buffers on all public ditches.

Figure 5.7: Floodplain Zoning Areas Administered by Dakota County

Source: Dakota County GIS

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 98 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 5.8: Buffer Areas

Source: Dakota County GIS

Contiguous Plat: Ordinance Number 108 Dakota County has plat review authority over plats filed adjacent to County roads and parks. The County Plat Commission reviews plats for issues of county-wide significance including ingress and egress to and from County roads, approach grade intersection with County needs, drainage, safety standards, right-of- way requirements of County roads, and local road system integration with the County road system.

Sequencing: Ordinance 119 The purpose of this Ordinance is to assure the orderly consideration of and action on permits and licenses for which both County and city or township approvals are required. The Ordinance is intended to reduce overlap and inefficiencies in the processing of applications, while assuring that applications are acted upon in a reasonable time and manner. An applicant for a permit or license to be issued by

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 99 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Dakota County is encouraged to seek any necessary approvals from municipal or township authorities prior to requesting approval from Dakota County.

Right Of Way: Ordinance 126 This Ordinance manages and regulates public use of County right-of-way along County roads, pursuant to authority granted to the County under state and federal law. The Ordinance identifies rules and regulation on the placement and maintenance of facilities and equipment currently within County right- of-way, including registration, permitting, reporting, insurance requirements, construction performance bonds, installation, restoration, costs, inspections, and other requirements.

Official Mapping: Ordinance 130 This Ordinance establishes County authority to develop an official map that identifies lands needed for future public purposes, which allows public and private landowners to adjust building plans prior to investments on the identified lands. The ordinance provides a uniform procedure for official mapping as authorized by MN Statute 394.361.

Standards Adopted by Reference The Dakota County Comprehensive Plan adopts by reference all future revisions to its official controls which are identified in the Plan upon their approval by the Board of Commissioners, including all future amendments made as the result of changes in State law and rules.

PROGRAM RESOURCES FOR LAND USE Dakota County Brownfields and Contaminated Sites Program • Conduct environmental audits/reviews/assessments • Investigate and evaluate brownfields for external partners and internal customers • Provide technical assistance for cleanup on County-owned lands • Provide grant funding for investigation and remediation

LAND USE AND SOLAR ACCESS The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minn. Stat. § 473.859, Subd. 2) requires that local comprehensive plans include “an element for the protection and development of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.” Dakota County supports renewable energy although its land use authority is limited to shoreland and floodplain within its 13 rural townships. The County’s Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinance allows limited solar structures but prohibits construction of Utility Scale Solar Energy Systems in shoreland areas. Solar structures are regulated by cities and townships for remaining areas.

The following solar map shows gross solar potential based on topography, vegetation, and other factors. Gross solar and gross solar rooftop potentials in the table are estimates of electricity that could be generated, expressed in megawatt hours per year (Mwh/yr), and were derived from the map. These values represent gross totals of potential solar, rather than the amount likely to develop or feasible within Dakota County. Estimates are based on existing technology and assumptions on conversion efficiency. An efficiency of 10 percent is based on benchmarking analyses for converting map data to actual production and solar industry standards used for site-level solar assessment.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 100 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 5.9: Gross Solar Potential, Dakota County

Source: Metropolitan Council

Table 5.3: Gross Solar and Rooftop Potential, Dakota County Gross Generation Rooftop Generation Gross Potential Rooftop Potential Area Potential Potential Mwh/year Mwh/year Mwh/year Mwh/year Dakota County 1,285,255,000 25,795,965 128,525,500 2,579,596

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 101 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Natural Resources This section discusses management of natural resources management for ecological and public benefits: • Land Resources • Water Management • Water Supply • Wastewater • Solid Waste • Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR NATURAL RESOURCES The guiding principles applied to natural resources are as follows:

Sustainability People live comfortably in a friendly, clean, and healthy community without placing environmental, economic, and social burdens on current and future generations.

Connectedness The public and private sectors use a more comprehensive approach to planning the County’s natural resource systems. Economic, social, and natural environments are interconnected systems. Natural systems are planned for and managed with the same level of thought and effort as built systems.

Collaboration Public agencies and the private sector coordinate efforts toward Figure 5.10: Ecological Subsections natural resources and open space goals. Limited resources are maximized through increased collaboration and partnerships.

Economic Vitality The interrelationships between economic growth and the protection and enhancement of natural resources and open space are recognized. A high-quality environment with functioning natural systems and public open spaces contributes to a community’s identity and desirability.

Growing and Nurturing People Preserve, enhance and create environments where people of all ages, incomes, and backgrounds can thrive — physically, intellectually, socially, and economically.

LAND RESOURCES Context: Dakota County’s legacy is founded on a uniquely rich endowment of natural capital — abundant, diverse resources that have drawn people to this area for 8,000 years and will continue to draw people Source: MN Department of Natural in the future. This richness is a product of Dakota County’s Resources

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 102 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 location at the meeting place of major natural systems: Figure 5.11: Marschner Map of Presettlement Vegetation ▪ The confluences of three of Minnesota’s great rivers: the Minnesota, Mississippi, and St. Croix ▪ The edge of the most recent glaciation, resulting in dramatically varied outwash, terminal moraine, and driftless landforms ▪ The convergence of major ecosystems: prairie, big woods, oak savanna, wetlands, and bluff lands Dakota County’s natural assets have included prime agricultural soils formed from limestone parent material, deep and highly fertile, and an abundant supply of clean groundwater, both essential ingredients for Dakota County’s early agrarian settlement.

Key Issues for Land Resources Dakota County’s original pre-settlement Source: Dakota County Planning landscapes represented some of the greatest biological diversity in the state. The County’s remaining plant and animal Figure 5.12: Geological Resources diversity is at risk with ongoing loss and fragmentation of habitat to development and irreversible changes to natural systems. Only two to three percent of high-quality pre-settlement natural areas remain today, many as islands amid urban or agricultural landscapes. Eighty- five percent of Dakota County’s original wetlands have been drained, reducing our natural systems’ ability to purify and store water and mitigate severe storms and floods.

Dakota County has a large share of the readily accessible, significant deposits of aggregate resources in the Metropolitan area, which relies on supplies mined in Dakota County for roads and residential, commercial, and industrial development. In 2016, more than 7.5 million tons of aggregate was mined from Dakota County.

Source: Dakota County Planning

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 103 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Land Resources Vision and Goals Vision: A healthy green infrastructure — Figure 5.13: Minnesota DNR Areas of Significant Biodiversity Dakota County’s natural areas, stream corridors, open space, farmland, parks, and greenways form an interconnected web that sustains vital natural processes and preserves water quality, landscape value, biodiversity, and opportunities for recreation. Agricultural operations in Dakota County are sustainable, significant contributors to the county’s economy and the wellbeing of county residents. Sustainable use of Dakota County’s high- quality natural resources today ensures that future generations also will be able to meet their needs.

Goal 5.3: Preserve vital functions of natural systems by strategically and collaboratively improving Dakota County’s green infrastructure. Objectives: 1. Protect, connect, and enhance natural areas, wetlands, stream corridors, open space, agricultural working lands, parks, and greenways. Source: Dakota County Planning 2. Identify and map opportunities to enhance Dakota County’s green infrastructure. 3. Lead and manage multi-agency collaborative approaches for green infrastructure protection and restoration priorities. 4. Update the County’s Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Plan to contemporary Land Conservation program guidelines.

Goal 5.4: Conserve and protect natural resources in Dakota County, including air quality, water, soil, productive farmland, minerals (bedrock, sand, and gravel aggregates), vegetation, and wildlife. Objectives: 1. Provide a timely, effective regulatory and management framework that responds to public interest in protecting the environment and natural resources. 2. Provide education on natural resource management and conservation. 3. Advocate for effective and equitable natural resource management. 4. Define appropriate roles for the County in the area of mineral resources and air quality.

Land Resources Policies LR 1. Collaborate to protect and connect resource lands that enhance natural systems functions. LR 2. Avoid impacts to significant natural areas; when unavoidable, mitigate loss at equal value.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 104 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

LR 3. Avoid fragmenting natural areas and corridors; when unavoidable, mitigate loss at equal or greater value within Dakota County. LR 4. Discourage use of high value wetlands for stormwater management when alternatives exist. LR 5. Incorporate ecosystem protection and restoration into County facility, park, greenway, and highway design and maintenance. LR 6. Review natural resource data when evaluating development and other use proposals for high priority natural areas and set preservation goals to protect high-quality habitat. LR 7. Encourage infiltration of stormwater where appropriate, protection of natural areas, and provision of open space. LR 8. Engage the public in planning processes and programs for managing and restoring natural areas. LR 9. Support agricultural preservation as a significant part of Dakota County’s heritage. LR 10. Prefer sustainable agriculture, including local food production on County land leased for farming. LR 11. Use the Dakota County Land Conservation Program to promote sustainable agricultural practices and improve water quality and wildlife habitat on protected private lands. LR 12. Encourage long-term stewardship of natural areas protected under the Dakota County Land Conservation Program. LR 13. Continue to use the County Land Conservation Program to protect and improve private land. LR 14. Promote environmentally and economically sustainable uses of County natural resources. LR 15. Engage residents and stakeholders in developing new regulations and controls to protect natural resources. LR 16. Establish an advocacy role to encourage the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Health to address air quality issues and improve air quality in the County.

Land Resources Programs Land Conservation Agricultural Land Stewardship Program • Acquire fee title or permanent easements from willing sellers on lands that include agricultural use to provide water quality and wildlife habitat benefits

Land Conservation Natural Area Protection Program • Acquire fee title and/or easements from willing landowners with required natural resource management plans to permanently protect, connect, and enhance natural areas of state, regional or County significance

Land Conservation Easement Monitoring Program • Monitor and assess County-acquired agriculture and natural area conservation, buffer, park, and greenway easements on an annual basis to ensure compliance with legal and Stewardship Plans (SP) and Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) requirements

Land Conservation Park and Greenway Acquisition: • Acquire fee title and/or easements of private property within established regional park boundaries and approved regional greenway master plans

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 105 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Context Dakota County Role in Surface Water The County’s roles in surface water management have included 1) collaboration with the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District on assessment, data, and programs; 2) support of watershed management organizations in the County; 3) administration of the County’s shoreland and floodplain; 4) septic system zoning authority; 5) effective execution of the County’s stormwater management and wetland restoration responsibilities; and 6) implementation of the County’s Aquatic Invasive Species Program Work Plan. Dakota County is not required to have its own local water management plan, as the local jurisdictions within the County have general land use authority and none have delegated the preparation of their local water management plans to the County. This Plan section addresses surface water issues from a County-wide perspective, focusing on the County’s current and potential future roles in water resource management and providing a framework for County Official Controls related to surface water.

Watersheds Six organizations manage Figure 5.14: Watershed Management Organizations watersheds in Dakota County: • Black Dog Watershed Management Organization • Eagan-Inver Grove Heights Watershed Management Organization • Lower Minnesota River Watershed District • Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization • North Cannon River Watershed Management Organization • Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization

The Black Dog, Eagan-Inver Grove Heights, and Lower Minnesota watersheds flow to the Minnesota River. The Lower Mississippi River, North Cannon River and Vermillion River watersheds flow to the Mississippi River.

Watershed management organization boundaries do not always mirror true hydrologic Source: Dakota County Planning watershed boundaries. Organization boundaries determine the tax base for administration and activities in each watershed organization, although hydrologic and management issues may cross organization boundaries.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 106 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Wetlands Figure 5.15: Hydric Soils and Existing Wetlands Wetlands are formed when hydric soils, hydrophytes (water-loving vegetation), and wetland hydrology are present. All three factors must be established to define an area as a wetland. Wetland benefits include: • Storage for excess water during flooding • Filtering sediments and nutrients before they enter lakes, rivers and streams • Fish and wildlife habitat • Public recreation

An estimated 85 percent of the County’s original wetlands have been drained or filled. The presence of hydric soils often indicates where wetlands used to exist, as shown on the adjacent map. Many areas with hydric soils no longer support wetlands. According to the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan, restoration in Dakota County should be the primary wetland management strategy.

The following table summarizes wetland types in Dakota County, with acreages from the 2011 National Wetlands Inventory.

Source: National Wetlands Inventory 2011 data

Table 5.4 Dakota County Wetlands by Type (2011 National Wetlands Inventory) Class Acres Description Seasonally flooded basins or flats. Soil seasonally covered with water or waterlogged, usually 1 8,047 well drained during the growing season. Vegetation varies with season and flooding. Fresh meadows. Soil without standing water during most of growing season but waterlogged 2 6 near the surface. Vegetation includes grasses, sedges, rushes, and broad-leaved plants. Shallow fresh marshes. 6” + of water in early growing season. Vegetation includes grasses, 3 6,127 bulrushes, spike rushes, cattails, arrowheads, pickerelweed, and smartweeds. Deep fresh marshes. 6" to 3' of water during growing season, with cattails, reeds, bulrushes, 4 1,060 spike rushes, wild rice. Open water has pondweeds, naiads, coontail, water milfoils, waterweeds, duckweeds, water lilies, or spatterdocks. Open fresh water. Shallow ponds and reservoirs. Water is usually less than 10' deep and fringed 5 8,365 by a border of emergent vegetation similar to open areas of deep fresh marshes. Shrub swamps. Waterlogged during growing season with 6' + of water. Vegetation includes 6 1,249 alders, willow, buttonbush, dogwoods, and swamp-privet. Wooded swamps. Waterlogged near surface in growing season, often up to 1' of water. Trees 7 7,966 include tamarack, arborvitae, black spruce, balsam, red maple, and black ash. 1/6–7 2,344 Various combinations of types 1 through 7. Riverine. Wetlands within a channel, bounded landward by uplands, by channel bank (including Riverine ------levees), or by wetland dominated by trees, shrubs, emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 107 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Major Rivers Mississippi River — forms Dakota County’s northeastern border. Drainage from most of the County finds its way directly to the Mississippi River or indirectly through the Vermillion or Cannon rivers. The Mississippi River in Dakota County is part of the 72-mile long Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) and the State’s Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area.

Minnesota River — forms Dakota County’s northwestern border. The reach from the I-494 Bridge to the Mississippi confluence is included in the MNRRA corridor. Efforts over the past decades have targeted water quality issues in the River with these challenges remaining: • Increasing flows from increased precipitation and artificial drainage • Excess sediment from unstable, bluffs, banks and farm fields • Excess nutrients and bacteria levels of concern

Vermillion River — flows from west to east across central Dakota County, from New Market Township in Scott County to the Mississippi River, flowing through farmland, suburbs, and cities. The watershed includes 49 miles of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-designated trout streams.

Cannon River — flows along parts of the County’s southern boundary area to Red Wing. The reach within Dakota County is designated a State Wild and Scenic River.

Trout Streams Minnesota Rules Chapter 6264 identifies waters classified as designated trout streams and trout stream tributaries. Dakota County has the following designated trout streams.

Table 5.5: Designated Trout Streams Designated Trout Stream/River General Location Unnamed Stream #4 Burnsville Unnamed Stream #7 Burnsville Black Dog Creek Eagan Kennaley’s Creek Eagan Unnamed Stream #1 Eagan Pine Creek and Unnamed Tributaries Douglas and Hampton townships Trout Brook and Unnamed Tributaries Douglas Township Vermillion River Farmington and Eureka, Empire, and Vermillion townships Vermillion River South Branch Castle Rock, Empire, and Vermillion townships Vermillion River North Creek and Middle Creek Farmington Vermillion River South Creek Lakeville, Farmington, and Eureka Township

The Vermillion River includes a highly valued public trout fishery and supports a self-sustaining wild brown trout population. Trout streams are particularly reliant on groundwater flow because the temperature of this source water is cool in the summer (and relatively high in winter). Potential issues facing the present nature of trout within the watershed are changes in groundwater transport rates or supply to the river. Shifts that increase impervious surface runoff and/or groundwater withdrawals will reduce the quantity and quality of trout habitat. The Vermillion River can benefit from projects that include wise groundwater use and development that encourages infiltration over runoff.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 108 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Agencies and groups have worked to protect or enhance trout habitat in the County. Kennaley’s Creek and the unnamed creeks are cold, spring-fed streams primarily within the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR). Designated trout segments of the Vermillion River are stocked with rainbow trout and also support a naturally reproducing brown trout population.

Trout Brook and Pine Creek feed into the Cannon River in Goodhue County and are managed by DNR’s Central Region. Both streams were stocked with trout at one time and now support naturally reproducing trout populations.

Figure 5.16: Designated Trout Streams and Calcareous Fens in Dakota County

Calcareous Fens Calcareous fens, one of the rarest natural communities in the United States, are wetlands fed by groundwater with large quantities of dissolved calcium carbonate (CaCO3, or lime). Calcareous fens often

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 109 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 have rare plant species adapted to the unique environment and receive protection under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Indicator plant species, soil characteristics, and groundwater relationships are used in fen identification. Calcareous fens are a special resource because their unique characteristics are difficult to restore if degraded and essentially impossible to re-create.

Calcareous fens are highly susceptible to disturbance. Reduction in the normal supply of groundwater results in oxidation of the surface peat, releasing nutrients and fostering the growth of shrubs and tall, coarse vegetation that displaces the fen plants. Nitrogen-rich surface water runoff into fens promotes the invasion of aggressive exotic plants, especially reed canary grass, that also outcompete the fen plants. Flooding drowns the fen plants. The soft, saturated character of the peat makes almost any level of activity within them, by humans or domestic livestock, highly disruptive. DNR identifies the following calcareous fen areas in Dakota County, all located within the Minnesota River valley.

Table 5.6: Calcareous Fens in Dakota County Black Dog Lake Fens: a, b, c, and North Gun Club Lake Fens: North and South Nicols Meadow Fens: a, b, and c

Impaired Waters The Federal Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water quality standards that define pollutant quantities that can be present in surface water and/or groundwater, while still allowing the water to meet its designated uses (drinking water, fishing, swimming, irrigation, or industrial purposes). The 2018 draft Impaired Waters list, or 303(d) list, is based on violations of water quality standards and is available on the MPCA Web site at www.pca.state.mn.us/water/minnesotas-impaired-waters-list. The last Impaired Waters List approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency for Minnesota is from 2014 (mapped in Figure 5.18). Impairment status is based on water sampling data. Past assessments found 37 percent of lakes and 40 percent of rivers and streams to be impaired for their designated use.

Impervious surfaces prevent infiltration of rainwater. Storm sewers quickly pipe stormwater and contaminants (oils, salt, detergents, and fertilizers) to waterways. Agricultural runoff adds to declining water quality through soil erosion and chemical and nutrient loading to surface waters. The County, cities, and watershed organizations are required to contribute to impaired waters assessment, planning, and implementation efforts.

County Resident Opinions The County’s 2017 scientific survey asked residents to rate the importance of various natural resources protections. Residents gave the highest ratings to water resources protection, consistent with past surveys. Protecting surface water from pollution was deemed important by 96 percent of respondents.

Figure 5.17: 2017 County Resident Ratings on Water Management

Very Important Somewhat Important

Reduce Impacts of Flooding

Protect Lakes/Rivers/Streams from Pollution

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 110 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 5.18: Water Quality Impairments, 2014 EPA-Approved List

Source: Dakota County GIS

Water Management Vision and Goals Vision: Sufficient, sustainable high-quality water resources are available into the future. Goal 5.5: Sufficient and sustainable high quality water resources. Objectives: 1. Prevent groundwater and surface water degradation from point and non-point source contamination. 2. Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts of resource extraction, agriculture, and urban development on groundwater and surface water. 3. Increase community awareness of water resource issues. 4. Support sustainable watershed/ecosystem-based water resource management. 5. Protect shoreland and floodplain areas to preserve and enhance surface water quality, prevent economic loss, and conserve the natural environment.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 111 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

6. Promote and maintain cooperation with the townships to protect shoreland and floodplain areas. 7. Identify, prioritize, and restore drained wetlands and other water retention sites to improve water quality, enhance wildlife habitat, and prevent/mitigate flood damage to public infrastructure and private property. 8. Implement Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) waste-load allocation reduction projects required under the County’s MS4 permit.

Water Management Policies WM 1. Monitor water resource quality and quantity to evaluate the impact of human activities. WM 2. Encourage all communities to adopt water conservation and pollution prevention measures that meet or exceed requirements. WM 3. Support protection of unique water resources, including but not limited to wetlands, fens, springs, and trout streams. WM 4. Use and encourage others to use riparian land easement and buffer programs to improve water quality. WM 5. Support research on mining impacts to water resources and support local governments in evaluating mining operations. WM 6. Participate cooperatively with watershed management organizations, as appropriate. WM 7. Encourage communities to complete wetland protection and management plans, assessments, and updates and incorporate these documents into ordinance. WM 8. Protect shoreland and floodplain areas to preserve and enhance surface water quality, prevent economic loss, and conserve the natural environment through County Ordinance No. 50. WM 9. Collaborate with others in the control of aquatic invasive species. WM 10. Encourage partners to integrate water resources management projects that meet or exceed regulatory requirements with County Transportation, Parks, Facilities, and other County-owned or managed projects. WM 11. Work with local communities and state agencies to identify and implement TMDL waste-load allocation reduction projects required under the MS4 permit.

Water Management Official Controls Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinance 50 Dakota County exercises zoning authority in the floodplain and DNR-designated shoreland districts of unincorporated areas. Dakota County has also accepted enforcement responsibilities under the buffer law that extends countywide and includes areas within the cities. Cities in Dakota have authority for shoreland and floodplain management, implementing standards set by Minnesota Rules and incorporated through local ordinances. The law is enforced through Ordinance 50, requiring 50-foot wide permanent buffers on all Public Waters and 16.5-foot wide permanent buffers on all public ditches. The County regulates subdivision, use, and development of shorelands and public waters through Ordinance 50, adopted in 1973 to:

• Protect the health safety and welfare of the public • Protect and preserve the outstanding values of a designated Wild and Scenic River • Conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands • Provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources • Preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 112 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Storm Sewer System Ordinance 132 This ordinance is intended to protect the quality of waterbodies in Dakota County through regulation of stormwater and non-stormwater discharges via County-owned or operated storm sewers. It establishes methods for controlling the introduction of pollutants into the County’s municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), as required for compliance with the requirements of the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.

Water Management Programs Byllesby Dam Management: Implement dam monitoring plan, public safety plan, dam structure and equipment maintenance, and capital improvement projects for compliance with state and federal regulations, and develop and oversee financially sustainable and efficient long-term operational plans.

Shoreland and Floodplain Regulation Program: Protect shore land and floodplain areas to preserve and enhance surface water quality, prevent economic loss, and conserve the natural environment through the regulation of development and the implementation of protection requirements.

Surface Water Protection: Protect and monitor unique water resources throughout the County. • Administer surface water management and protection programs • Administer the Aquatic Invasive Species Program • Administer the County Stormwater Program • Administer the Septic System Low Income Grant Program • Coordinate waterway restorations • Implement the Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP) • Regulate septic systems for Shoreland Areas, Randolph Township, and Randolph and New Trier cities

Dakota County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program: Municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in Minnesota are regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), which authorizes stormwater discharge by Dakota County through a permit updated every five years. The permit requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP), which outlines actions and becomes an enforceable part of the permit. SWPPs must have activities in six Minimum Control Measures (MCMs):

1. Public Education and Outreach: providing information to residents and schools through partners, including Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization. 2. Public Participation/Involvement: working with cities, recruiting volunteers, and engaging citizens in an annual public meeting on the County MS4 program. 3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: ensuring that illicit discharges are not entering storm sewers and reaching surface waters. 4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control: using measures to control site runoff. For MS4 road work, the County reviews erosion and sediment control plans and works with cities to ensure local and watershed requirements are met. 5. Post Construction Stormwater Management: designing County MS4 projects with cities and watersheds to ensure long-term stormwater management requirements are met. 6. Pollution Prevention: managing street sweeping, road salt application, and maintenance and teaching maintenance professionals about stormwater pollution and minimizing stormwater impacts.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 113 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

WATER SUPPLY Context About 90 percent of Dakota County’s drinking water supply comes from groundwater. Land use and land cover determine the quality and quantity of the County’s water resources, making wise land use and management vital to water resource protection. Dakota County’s population is forecast to increase by 96,200 people, or 23 percent, between 2017 and 2040. Continued growth and development will increase demand on water resources and increase the number of people at risk of health problems related to exposure to contaminated surface or groundwater.

Except for parts of Mendota, Mendota Heights, and West St. Paul, Dakota County residents receive their drinking water from groundwater sources, consisting of aquifers in the glacial deposits or “Quaternary aquifers” and aquifers in the underlying formations or “bedrock aquifers.”

Detailed hydrologic studies Figure 5.19: Groundwater Sensitivity to Pollution have been completed in parts of the County, but most information on the County’s hydrology is from research completed by the Minnesota Geological Survey for the Dakota County Geologic Atlas.

Quaternary aquifers While no municipal supplies draw from Quaternary aquifers, about one–third of the county’s private wells are in glacial deposits.

Many Quaternary aquifers have significant gravel or coarse sand, posing concern for contamination because they transmit water and contaminants quickly. Quaternary aquifers in contact with bedrock aquifers are hydrologically connected and can transmit contaminated water to bedrock aquifers.

The highest yielding Source: Dakota County Water Resources Quaternary aquifers are in deep bedrock valleys but are unlikely to be used for municipal supplies due to contamination, drought, and siltation concerns.

Bedrock aquifers Four regional bedrock aquifers are the primary groundwater suppliers in Dakota County: the Platteville, the St. Peter, the Prairie du Chien-Jordan, and the St. Lawrence-Franconia.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 114 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

The Platteville aquifer is a limestone aquifer used for some domestic supplies in Mendota Heights, South St. Paul, and Inver Grove Heights. Most wells in this area were drilled before records were required, so little is known about the hydrologic properties of this aquifer.

The St. Peter aquifer is a sandstone aquifer used for domestic water supplies in the northern part of the county. Local recharge is greatest under sandy surface deposits and where it is not covered by the Glenwood Formation or thick glacial till. Lakes overlying the St. Peter may also recharge this aquifer.

The Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer underlies the entire county except in deep, buried bedrock valleys, and is composed of four units: Shakopee Dolomite, New Richmond Sandstone, Oneota Dolomite, and Jordan Sandstone. The Prairie du Chien and Jordan are generally treated as a single aquifer; although they act as independent aquifers in some areas. The Prairie du Chien-Jordan is the most heavily used source of groundwater in the county and qualities of overlying rock and sediment determine susceptibility to pollution in a given area.

The St. Lawrence-Franconia aquifer is thought to extend throughout the county except the east end of the buried bedrock valley in Marshan and Ravenna townships. The St. Lawrence-Franconia aquifer is used primarily for domestic supplies, although some multi-aquifer wells use it to supplement flow from other formations. This aquifer is used in the northeast portion of the county. Yield is low to moderate.

Key Issues Drinking water quality — 90 percent of Dakota County’s population relies on groundwater for drinking water. Two-thirds of the county land area is highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination because of thin soils and glacial material over fractured underlying bedrock. Most contaminated groundwater is located in surface sand and gravel aquifers, although well drilling advisories exist in near-surface bedrock aquifers throughout southern and southeastern areas of the county. In 2013 and 2014, 13 townships and five cities in Dakota County were selected for private well nitrate sampling. In this study, 27 percent of private wells sampled were above the health standard of 10 mg/L for nitrate as nitrogen (nitrate-N). Results from the sampling revealed that in 12 communities, 10 percent or more of the wells were over 10 mg/L nitrate-N. In Marshan Township, 53 percent were over the health standard in contrast to Farmington, where no wells were found to exceed the standard.

Drinking water quantity — Development increases the amount of impervious surfaces such as pavement and rooftops that curtail natural rainwater infiltration and aquifer recharge, although there are local requirements in place to mitigate the impact to hydrology from new impervious surfaces. Excessive consumption of drinking water for uses that do not require drinkable water quality can threaten the long term supply of drinking water. It is unclear whether groundwater supplies are adequate in some areas of the County to meet this demand. It is also unclear what effect demand will have on surface water features such as trout streams and fens (rare wetlands) that depend on groundwater. The following maps show areas of potential groundwater drawdown and where groundwater drawdown potentially will affect surface water resources. Projected drawdown of the predominant water supply aquifer affects large areas of Hennepin and Dakota counties (Figure 5.20).

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 115 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 5.20: Projected Aquifer Drawdown Areas

Map Source: Metropolitan Council, 2014

Figure 5.21: Groundwater Pumping and Impacts to Surface Water Features

Map Source: Metropolitan Council, 2009

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 116 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Interconnected systems — Water should be managed as an interconnected system recognizing watershed relationships, land use practices, and surface water-groundwater relationships.

▪ Dakota County’s wetlands are its natural cleansing, storage, and infiltration systems for surface water. An estimated 85 percent of the County’s pre-settlement wetlands have been drained.

▪ Forty percent of Dakota County’s tested surface waters are impaired according to state and federal standards.

▪ Sustainable land use practices are essential to improving water quality — sustainable development and agriculture, appropriate management of landfills, and remediation of contaminated sites.

▪ Effective public information, outreach, and involvement are needed to promote more sustainable decisions and actions that will improve water quality.

▪ Improved data management, sharing, and storage among public agencies are needed.

▪ Collaboration is needed among state and local agencies with water-related responsibilities (e.g., Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Board of Water and Soil Resources, and Minnesota departments of Health, Natural Resources, and Agriculture).

County Resident Opinions The County’s 2017 scientific survey asked residents to rate the importance of a variety of actions to protect natural resources. Actions receiving the highest importance ratings relate to water resources protection, consistent with the findings of past residential surveys. Protecting rural drinking water supplies was rated as important by 91 percent of respondents.

FIgure 5.22: 2017 County Resident Ratings on Drinking Water Quality

Very Important Somewhat Important

Protect Drinking Water in Rural Areas

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Water Supply Vision and Goal Vision for the Future: Sufficient, sustainable high-quality water supplies are available into the future Goal 5.6: Sufficient and sustainable high quality water supplies. Objectives: 1. Maintain good quality and quantity of county drinking water supplies and improve water supplies. 2. Protect a sustainable and sufficient water supply through collaboration, regulation, water conservation, and education. 3. Prevent groundwater and surface water degradation from point and non-point sources. 4. Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts of resource extraction, agriculture, and urban development on groundwater and surface water. 5. Increase community awareness of water resource and supply issues. 6. Work with state, regional, and local partners on water supply issues. 7. Update groundwater protection tools (programs, plans, ordinances, studies, or policies).

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 117 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

8. Work to identify high quality infiltration areas to be protected from contamination and to utilize for maintaining future groundwater recharge.

Water Supply Policies WS 1. Monitor water resource quality and quantity to evaluate human-made and naturally occurring contaminants and the impact of human activities. WS 2. Protect a safe and adequate drinking water supply. WS 3. Encourage all communities to adopt water conservation and pollution prevention measures that meet or exceed requirements. WS 4. Ensure that new wells are constructed and unused wells are sealed according to Dakota County and State of Minnesota requirements.

Water Supply Official Controls Dakota County’s roles in groundwater protection include planning, well and septic regulation, and research.

Well and Water Supply Management, Ordinance 114 Ordinance 114 provides standards for and regulation of wells and water supplies to protect groundwater and the environment and to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of Dakota County pursuant to authority granted under Minnesota Statutes. The Ordinance addresses proper location and construction of wells; necessary modifications and reconstruction; operation, maintenance, and repair; permanent sealing; and annual maintenance permitting, including registered use wells and unused wells.

Ordinance No. 113: Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems Each city and township administers its own sewage system ordinance and the County administers the sewage system ordinance within the Shoreland and Floodplain areas of townships. All municipalities are encouraged to adopt Dakota County Individual Sewage Treatment Ordinance No. 113. The intent of Ordinance 113 is to protect irreplaceable natural resources of groundwater, surface waters, and soils and bedrock and to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Dakota County. Ordinance No. 113 provides standards, guidelines, and regulations for the compliance and enforcement of the proper siting, design, construction, installation, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction, inspection, and permanent abandonment of individual sewage treatment systems.

Water Supply Plans and Programs Dakota County Drinking Water Protection Program Dakota County’s program includes the following activities and services:

• Administer Ordinance No. 114: Well and Water Supply Management • Assist cities with wellhead protection and water supply planning • Conduct Ambient Groundwater Quality research • Conduct water quality-related research and outreach • Manage the Delegated Well Program • Promote well sealing through cost-share grants • Provide drinking water testing, education, and outreach

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 118 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

WASTEWATER Context Dakota County has a regulatory role in wastewater treatment, related to individual septic systems outside of the urban area served by centralized wastewater treatment plants. About 30 percent of the County’s land area has central sewer lines. On-site systems are used by most township residents, except in a limited area of Empire Township and by some residents of suburban cities. In this Plan, “individual sewage treatment system” (ISTS), “on-site system” and “sewer system” refer to the same method of sewage treatment, where sewage from a dwelling, building, structure, or other establishment flows into an underground tank, and eventually into the soil for treatment and disposal.

Standards required by the state are formally known as Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080. These Rules contain detailed standards and procedures for the location, design, installation, use, and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems. Figure 5.23: Wastewater Treatment Figure 5.23 shows the location of 984 individual septic systems regulated by Dakota County, in shoreland areas, Randolph and Waterford townships, and the cities of Randolph and New Trier. This figure also shows the location of regional and municipal wastewater treatment plants.

Regional treatment facilities Provision of adequate wastewater treatment facilities to sustain projected population growth is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division (MCES). The Council manages a series of complex collector systems and central treatment plants. Dakota County is served by the large Metro plant in St. Paul, the Seneca plant in Eagan and smaller plants in Hastings, and Empire Township.

Municipal treatment facilities The cities of Vermillion and Hampton operate wastewater treatment facilities that serve small areas with limited capacity plants.

Additional facilities Package treatment plant and community drain field proposals fall under the jurisdiction of the underlying land use authority (i.e., city and township), including in overlay areas where Dakota County administers rural shoreland and floodplain permitting. Should these systems be allowed by local zoning, they would need to comply with Dakota County Ordinance No. 113, MN Rules 7080, and any other applicable rules.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 119 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Wastewater Goals: Goal 5.7: Ensure that residents have adequate wastewater disposal where no municipal system is available.

Objectives: 1. There will be enough reasonably close municipal septage dumpsites for all septage generated within Dakota County. 2. Ensure that Individual Septic Treatment Systems are constructed, operated, and maintained in an ecologically and economically responsible manner.

Wastewater Policies WW 1. Individual sewage treatment systems in Dakota County must be constructed, operated, and maintained in conformance with Minnesota statutes and rules and County Ordinances No. 50 (Shoreland and Floodplain Management) and No. 113 (Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems). WW 2. Cities and townships in Dakota County must adopt and adequately enforce County Ordinance No. 113 or a local ordinance that includes the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 113. WW 3. The County will continue to support cities and townships toward replacing failing sewage systems with systems that comply with state rules and their local ordinance. WW 4. The County will provide septic record information to local sewer system maintenance programs, consistent with the requirements to develop a three-year maintenance schedule for individual sewage treatment systems. WW 5. Disposal of septage in surface waters, ditches or drainageways, shorelands, floodplains, sinkholes, through drain tiles, on steep slopes, or in any manner with the potential to adversely affect public health will not be allowed. WW 6. The County will continue efforts to improve on-site sewage systems in the shoreland and floodplain zoning districts in unincorporated townships.

Wastewater Official Controls On-site sewer systems throughout the County are regulated primarily through municipal ordinances, which include by adoption the Model Ordinance No. 113 requirements. In designated shoreland and floodplain areas, Dakota County Ordinance No. 50 permits on-site systems. Both Ordinance No. 113 and Ordinance No. 50 adopt by reference Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080, which are the statewide standards for the design, construction, and maintenance for individual sewer systems.

Dakota County Ordinance No. 113: Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems Ordinance No. 113 provides standards, guidelines, and regulations for the compliance and enforcement of the proper siting, design, construction, installation, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction, inspection, and permanent abandonment of individual sewage treatment systems.

Each city and township administers its own sewage system ordinance and the County administers the sewage system ordinance within the Shoreland and Floodplain areas of townships, the cities of Randolph and New Trier, and throughout Randolph and Waterford townships. All municipalities are encouraged to adopt Dakota County Individual Sewage Treatment Ordinance No. 113. The intent of Ordinance 113 is to protect irreplaceable natural resources of groundwater, surface waters, and soils and bedrock and to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Dakota County.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 120 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Dakota County Ordinance No. 50: Shoreland and Floodplain Management The County also is involved with ISTS through the administration of County Ordinance No. 50, which regulates rural shoreland and floodplain areas in unincorporated areas. Shoreland areas are designated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), while floodplain areas are designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The provisions of the Shoreland and Floodplain Management Ordinance must be no less restrictive than the regulations in Ordinance No. 113.

Other Ordinance No. 50 regulations pertaining to ISTS include requirements that the systems meet minimum setback distances from shorelines and that sewer systems cannot be built in floodplains when locations out of the floodplain are available.

Wastewater Programs Dakota County Surface Water Protection Program Dakota County’s program includes the following activities and services: • Administer Ordinance 113 Subsurface Sewage treatment Systems • Administer the Septic System Low Income Grant Program • Regulate Septic Systems for Shoreland Areas and the City of Randolph • Regulate Septic Systems for Shoreland Areas, Randolph and Waterford townships, and the cities of Randolph and New Trier

SOLID WASTE Context The amount of waste generated in Dakota County and how this waste is managed are critically linked to the quality of air, water and land, and ultimately the quality of life and health. Dakota County, working with local, regional, state, and federal governments, has made progress in protecting the environment and public health through regulations, programs, and services to manage residential and commercial solid and hazardous waste.

Dakota County’s role in solid waste is to implement requirements to protect public health and the environment and to implement projects and programs that make progress toward State solid waste management goals and objectives, such as to increase recycling. Dakota County collaborates with local governments and works with the waste management industry to manage waste. In 2014, State law changed, requiring Dakota County to achieve a 75 percent recycling rate goal by 2030. Dakota County’s recycling rate was 48 percent in 2016.

Dakota County supports the State’s integrated solid waste management hierarchy (in preferred order: reduce, reuse, recycle, organics recovery/diversion, resource recovery, land disposal), which recognizes that no single method of waste management can handle the entire waste stream in an environmentally and economically sound manner. The hierarchy equally emphasizes abatement, regulation, public education, and responsible planning that accounts for environmental and economic considerations.

This section of DC2040 addresses waste management broadly, leaving detailed implementation strategies to the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan (Master Plan). Please refer to the Master Plan for more detail on a variety of solid waste management issues.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 121 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

County Resident Opinions The County’s 2017 scientific survey asked residents to rate the importance of two solid waste management issues related to residential recycling and organics diversion. Requiring households to recycle (e.g., cans, glass, and paper) was deemed important by 88 percent of respondents, and requiring households to recycle organics (e.g., food waste) was deemed important by 54 percent of respondents.

Figure 5.24: 2017 County Resident Ratings of Recycling Importance

Very Important Somewhat Important

Require Households to Recycle Organics

Require Households to Recycle

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Solid Waste Goals: Goal 5.8: Increase recycling rates toward meeting State targets for Metropolitan counties. Goal 5.9: Plan, implement, and evaluate waste abatement projects and programs to meet Solid Waste Master Plan obligations.

Solid Waste Policies SW 1. Regulate waste in accordance with County ordinances. SW 2. Prioritize waste management in preferred order: waste and toxicity reduction, reuse, recycling and organics recovery/diversion (prevention, consumable food rescue for people, food scraps for livestock, food for industrial uses, and then composting) resource recovery, land disposal. SW 3. Implement projects and programs toward achieving state laws, rules, and Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan goals and objectives. SW 4. Employ multiple approaches including educational, regulatory, and financial to efficiently and effectively meet the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan goals and objectives. SW 5. Collaborate with the private and public sectors to address waste management issues. SW 6. Hold all persons, including waste generators and waste system operators, accountable for proper waste management and for following the Master Plan. SW 7. Advocate for State and Federal product stewardship laws with an emphasis on those that pose a health or public safety risk. SW 8. Seek external sources of funding to implement this Master Plan and for long-term and post- closure care of landfills. Solid Waste Official Controls Solid Waste Management Ordinance 110 Dakota County manages solid wastes in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, prevent the spread of disease, prevent the creation of nuisances, conserve our natural resources, and maintain the beauty and quality of our natural environment.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 122 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Hazardous Waste Regulation Ordinance 111 Hazardous waste generators and facilities are required to be licensed by the County. Inspections of the businesses may be performed by County staff to assure proper management of the hazardous wastes on the site. Violations may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony.

Solid Waste Programs Dakota County operates these waste management programs with a range of activities and services:

Hazardous Waste Generator Program • Administer Ordinance 111 Hazardous Waste Regulation • Provide hazardous waste training • Conduct hazardous waste inspections, licensing, and enforcement for the County's 1,200+ hazardous waste generators and provide technical assistance

Hazardous Waste Management • Collaborate on the Pharmaceuticals Collection Program • Conduct Very Small Quantity Generator (VSQG) waste collections • Develop waste-related policy, planning, and reporting • Oversee operations at The Recycling Zone • Provide business hazardous waste collection services • Provide environmental education, outreach, and communications to target audiences • Provide household hazardous waste management services

Solid Waste Regulation • Administer Ordinance 110 Solid Waste Management • Administer the Burn Barrel Program • Conduct demolition landfills inspections/licensing/enforcement • Conduct scrap yards inspections/licensing/enforcement • Conduct solid waste inspections/licensing/enforcement for the County's 30+ Licensed Solid Waste Facilities and hauling vehicles and provide technical assistance • Conduct transfer facility inspections/licensing/enforcement • Provide waste tire management • Regulate waste haulers

Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiatives • Assist with developing and implementing business and school recycling and organics collection programs • Communicate successes to diverse audiences • Develop and provide education for proper waste management • Develop waste-related policy, planning, reporting • Encourage Residential Recycling • Encourage sustainable County practices • Enhance County office recycling • Facilitate public engagement • Facilitate waste diversion at the County Fair • Implement a business recycling program

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 123 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

• Implement a composting/organics program • Implement Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program in coordination with Purchasing • Implement the Community Funding Program • Participate in Regional coordination efforts • Provide environmental education, outreach, and communications to target audiences

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 124 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan INTRODUCTION The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) comprises 72 miles of river across 30 Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA) jurisdictions. The MRCCA is governed by special land planning requirements and land development regulations created to protect and preserve the natural, scenic, recreational, and transportation resources of this section of the Mississippi River. Local communities within the corridor are required to complete a MRCCA plan as a chapter of their Comprehensive Plan.

MRCCA cities and townships in Dakota County administer their own plans and zoning ordinances for land in the river corridor. Dakota County’s land-use authority in the MRCCA is limited to the shoreland and floodplain areas in Nininger and Ravenna townships. Dakota County plans and implements programs and projects for County land, facilities, roads, highways, parks, and trails, which are the primary focus for this plan.

History The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) was designated by Governor’s Executive Order in 1976, following the passage of the 1973 Minnesota Critical Areas Act. On January 4, 2017, Minnesota Rules, chapter 6106 replaced Executive Order 79-19, which previously governed land use in the MRCCA. The rules require local governments to update their MRCCA plans and MRCCA ordinances for consistency with the rules.

The MRCCA is important because of its many significant natural and cultural resources, including scenic views, water, navigation, geology, soils, vegetation, minerals, fauna, cultural resources, and recreational resources. The MRCCA is home to a full range of residential neighborhoods and parks, as well as river- related commerce, industry, and transportation. A brief timeline of the MRCCA history is below:

1973 - Minnesota passes Critical Areas Act of 1973 (MN Statutes, Chapter 116G). Environmental Quality Board (EQB) adopts rules to implement Act (MN Rules, parts 4410.8100 – 4410.9910) 1976 - Mississippi River and adjacent corridor designated a state critical area by Governor Wendell Anderson (Executive Order No. 130) 1979 - Designation continued by Governor Albert Quie (Executive Order 79-19). Metropolitan Council acts to make designation permanent (Resolution 79-48) 1988 - In 1988, the U.S. Congress established the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), a unit of the National Park System. The MNRRA shares the same boundary as the MRCCA, and the park’s Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP), signed by the Governor and Secretary of the Interior, incorporates by reference the MRCCA program for land use management. Rather than institute a separate layer of federal regulations, the MNRRA largely relies on the MRCCA to manage land use within the park. This reliance establishes a unique partnership and framework for land use management amongst the local, state and federal governments to protect the intrinsic resources of the Mississippi River Corridor. 1991 - MNRRA designated a state critical area per Critical Areas Act (MN Statutes, §116G.15) 1995 - Responsibility shifts from EQB to Department of Natural Resources (DNR) by Governor Arne Carlson (Reorganization Order 170) 2007 - Legislature directs DNR to prepare report on the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (Completed January 2008) 2009 - Legislature amends MN Statutes, §116G.15 and directs DNR to conduct rulemaking for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MN Laws 2009, Chapter 172, Article 2, §5.e.)

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 125 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

2011 - DNR develops draft rule after stakeholder process, but rulemaking authority lapses 2013 - Legislature directs DNR to resume rulemaking process in consultation with local governments 2017 - Rules become effective January 4

Results of Previous Plans and Ordinances In the early 1980s, Dakota County adopted plans for parks, trails, and environmental protection and a shoreland zoning and floodplain management ordinance (Ordinance 50). All plans have been updated since their original adoption. Dakota County has updated Ordinance 50 for consistency with major provisions and enforceable standards of the Mississippi River Critical Area Act in the past and expects to do so again after adoption of its 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as necessary.

Spring Lake Park Reserve (SLPR) is within the Mississippi River Critical Area. The master plan for Spring Lake Park Reserve was updated in 2003 to create a unique vision based on the natural and cultural legacy of the park area. The master plan is scheduled to be updated in 2019 or 2020. The 2008 Park System Plan addressed major system needs for strategic ecological restoration and cultural resource protection and interpretation. Dakota County prepared a Natural Resources Management System Plan for its full park system and County conservation easements in 2017 and will prepare an individual Natural Resources Management Plan for Spring Lake Park Reserve concurrent with the master plan update. Interpretive plans also have been developed for the Big Rivers and Mississippi River regional trails. The County also prepared its first Parks Visitor Services Plan in 2017 to improve public awareness of parks and improve education programming, volunteerism, events, and facility and equipment rentals in the system. These plans are consistent with the spirit of the Critical Area legislation, providing public access and views to the Mississippi River while protecting and restoring natural resources.

As a result of the County’s park plans and implementation of Ordinance 50: • Spring Lake Park Reserve protects river landscapes and provides visitor recreation and education opportunities. Interpretive planning and nodes have been developed that provide expansive river views and information on the cultural and natural history of the area. • Large acreages of natural areas in Spring Lake Park Reserve have been restored. • Several segments of Mississippi River Regional Trail have been constructed, with a segment in Rosemount remaining as the final gap. • Erosion sources are identified and addressed. • Existing natural vegetation has been retained in river bluff areas. • Residential development has occurred on environmentally suitable sites. • Rock quarrying is authorized by a conditional use permit. • New buildings are prohibited in floodplain without a conditional use permit. • New on-site sewer systems have been inspected to meet Minnesota Rule 7080. • New structures have been built on sites that meet bluffline setbacks. • Septic systems installed prior to 1996 have been inspected. Owners of failing systems have been required to upgrade them.

Public Engagement for the MRCCA The Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Residential Survey was conducted by the Minnesota Center for Survey Research in spring of 2017 and asked questions that related to natural resource elements important to MRCCA protection and enhancement. When asked how important preserved natural areas that protect natural resources and provide visual access to open space are to attract

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 126 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 people to live in Dakota County and retain those already living there, 89 percent of respondents rated them as important. In addition, 96 percent of respondents support surface water protection.

During the comprehensive plan public engagement process, the MRCCA Area was identified on materials on the County web page and on display boards used at public engagement open houses and stakeholder meetings. The public and stakeholders were invited to comment on the proposed goals, as well as view sheds that should be protected as part of the MRCCA plan update process.

Implementation Progress on the DC2030 MRCCA Plan As part of DC2030, Dakota County adopted as its goals, the purposes for which the Mississippi River Corridor was designated as a critical area.

1. Protect and preserve unique and valuable state and regional resources in the Corridor 2. Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to the Corridor 3. Maintain the value and utility of the Corridor for all public purposes 4. Prevent and mitigate danger to the life and property of the people who live in or use the Corridor 5. Protect and preserve the river as an essential element in the national, state and regional transportation, sewer, water, and recreational systems 6. Protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the Corridor 7. Preserve and enhance aesthetic, cultural, and historical values

Progress made toward the goals since the DC2030 MRCCA Plan is summarized below:

Table 5.7: DC2030 MRCCA Implementation Activities Dakota County Activities in the MRCCA MRCCA Goals Advanced Collaborated with Macalester College in permanent protection of 163 acres at the Katherine 1, 6 Ordway Natural History Study Area on the Mississippi in Inver Grove Heights Acquired 240 acres and 1.5 miles of shoreland in SLPR from seven private inholding owners, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 removed several houses, and restored land Worked with DNR to protect and add 63 acres to Pine Bend Bluffs SNA in Inver Grove Heights 1,3, 6 Prepared a Parks Natural Resources Management System Plan for restoration and 1, 6, 7 management of parklands and County-protected private easements Restored portions of Spring Lake Park Reserve’s ecosystems 1, 6, 7 Prepared a Parks Visitor Services Plans to increase awareness of parks and provide more 3, 5, 6, 7 education and recreation opportunities in the system Successfully applied for and received Federal Land Access Program funds for MRRT 3, 5 Constructed Mississippi River Regional Trail (MRRT) segments and trailheads 3, 5 Conducted mitigation and restoration work within the MRRT corridor 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 Transferred Spring Lake islands to the DNR as a new state Wildlife Management Area 1, 2, 3, 6 Prepared the Mississippi River Regional Trail Cultural Interpretation Plan 3, 6, 7 Collaborated with the City of Inver Grove Heights to preserve part of the historic Rock Island 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 Swing Bridge in Inver Grove Heights as a scenic pier

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 127 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

MRCCA GOAL Goal 5.11: Preserve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, economic, recreational, cultural, and historical values of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area within Dakota County and protect its environmentally sensitive areas.

Objectives: 1. Protect and preserve unique and valuable state and regional resources in the Corridor 2. Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to the Corridor 3. Maintain the value and utility of the Corridor for all public purposes 4. Prevent and mitigate danger to the life and property of the people who live in or use the Corridor 5. Protect and preserve the river as an essential element in the national, state, and regional transportation, sewer, water and recreational systems 6. Protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the Corridor 7. Preserve and enhance aesthetic, cultural, and historical values 8. Provide river views, access, and interpretation along the Mississippi River Regional Trail

ELEMENTS SHAPING THE CRITICAL AREA MRCCA Districts Six districts are defined in MRCCA rules, based on the natural and built character of different areas of the corridor. Structure setbacks, height limits, and the amount of open space required for subdivisions vary by district. All other MRCCA standards apply uniformly throughout the corridor. The presence and diversity of the districts supports different dimensional standards needed to enhance the corridor’s character and to protect its identified resources. The following MRCCA districts exist in Dakota County:

Rural and Open Space District (CA-ROS): characterized by rural and low-density development and land uses, has land that is riparian or visible from the river, and has undeveloped tracts of high ecological and scenic value, floodplain, and undeveloped islands. Many primary conservation areas exist in this district. This district must be managed to sustain and restore the rural and natural character of the corridor and protect and enhance habitat, parks, open space, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural, and historic areas. Spring Lake Park Reserve is mostly within this district. River Neighborhood District (CA-RN): characterized by neighborhoods that are riparian or visible from the river or that abut riparian parkland. Includes parks and open space, limited commercial development, marinas, and related land uses. This district must be managed to maintain corridor character within the context of existing residential neighborhoods and protect and enhance habitat, parks and open space, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural, and historic areas. Minimizing erosion and untreated storm water flow into the river and enhancing habitat and shoreline vegetation are priorities. River Towns and Crossings District (CA-RTC): characterized by historic downtown areas, limited nodes of intense development at specific crossings, and institutional campuses that predate MRCCA designation and include taller buildings. This district must be managed to allow continued growth and redevelopment in historic downtowns and more intensive redevelopment in limited areas at river crossings for compact walkable development patterns and connections to the river. Minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river, providing public access to and public views of the river, and restoring natural vegetation in riparian areas and tree canopy are priorities.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 128 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Separated from River District (CA-SR): characterized by physical and visual distance from the River. Land may be separated from the River by distance, topography, development, or a transportation corridor and is not readily visible from the Mississippi River. This district provides flexibility in managing development without negatively affecting key corridor resources. Minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas, erosion, and flow of untreated storm water into the River are priorities. Urban Mixed District (CA-UM): characterized by large areas of highly urbanized mixed use, including institutional, commercial, industrial, and residential areas and parks and open space. This district must be managed to allow for future growth and potential transition of intensely developed areas that do not negatively affect public river corridor views and that protect bluffs and floodplains. Restoring and enhancing bluff and shoreline habitat, minimizing erosion and flow of untreated storm water into the river, and public access to and public views of the river are priorities. County Management and Facilities within the MRCCA Dakota County retains shared land use authority for rural shoreland and floodplain permitting in Nininger and Ravenna townships within the MRCCA. County Ordinance No. 50 identifies County policies and procedures for permitting structures within shoreland, after review by township authorities. The following map shows facilities that Dakota County owns or manages within the MRCCA:

Figure 5.25: Dakota County Facilities in the MRCCA

Source: Dakota County Planning

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 129 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Dakota County facilities within the MRCCA include:

• Spring Lake Park Reserve (CA-ROS, CA-SP) • Big Rivers Regional Trail (CA-ROS, CA-RN, CA-SR, CA-RTC) • Mississippi River Regional Trail (CA-UM, CA-SR, CA-ROS) • County roads that pass through or border the MRCCA

Table 5.8: County Roads in the MRCCA Map # Designation Road Names 1 County Road 43 Lexington Avenue 2 County Road 45 Lilydale Road 3 County Road 8 Wachtler Avenue 4 County Road 4 Butler Avenue 5 County Road 6 Central Avenue, 3rd Avenue North 6 County Road 14 Grand Avenue 7 County Road 56 Concord Boulevard 8 County Road 42 Mississippi Trail, Nininger Road, Lock Boulevard, 2nd Street West 9 County Road 91 Glendale Road 10 County Road 54 Ravenna Trail 11 County Road 68 200th Street East

Spring Lake Park Reserve includes the Rural and Open Space and Separated from River Districts.

Figure 5.26: MRCCA Districts in Spring Lake Park Reserve

Source: HKGi

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 130 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Primary Conservation Areas: Spring Lake Park Reserve Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs) are defined as key Figure 5.27 Shore Impact Zone Diagram resources and features that are given priority consideration for protection. PCAs include shore impact zones, bluff impact zones, floodplains, wetlands, gorges, areas of confluence, natural drainage routes, unstable soils and bedrock, native plant communities, cultural and historic properties, significant existing vegetative stands, tree canopies, and other identified resources. Because Spring Lake Park Reserve is the only County facility that includes a large natural land area that the County manages, the Primary Conservation Area discussion in Dakota County’s MRCCA plan focuses on Spring Lake Park Reserve.

Shore Impact Zones Shore areas are environmentally sensitive and need special protection from development and vegetation removal. The shore impact zone is a “buffer” area between the water’s edge and the area where development is permitted (Figure 5.27). The shore impact zone runs along the entirety of Spring Lake Park Reserve’s boundary with Spring Lake and the Mississippi River. The shore impact zone is narrow in depth and is mostly inaccessible from the main park land because of its location at the bottom of steep slopes.

Figure 5.28: Shore Impact Zone, Spring Lake Park Reserve

Source: HKGi Floodplains and Wetlands Wetlands are transitional lands between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or land is covered by shallow water. Floodplains adjoin a watercourse and are

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 131 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 generally flooded in 100-year flood events. Much of Spring Lake Park Reserve is significantly higher than the ordinary high water line of the Mississippi River. Floodplains are limited within the park to a narrow strip of floodway along the water’s edge and 100-year floodplain areas in low-lying inlets in the Nininger portion of the park. Wetlands are limited to two isolated small areas exist in the Rosemount portion of the park and two isolated small wetland areas in the eastern Nininger Township portion of the park.

Figure 5.29: MRCCA Floodplains & Wetlands in Spring Lake Park Reserve

Source: HKGi

Natural Drainage Ways Natural drainage ways are linear depressions that collect and drain surface water. They may be permanently or temporarily inundated. Over half a dozen natural drainage ways in the park flow towards the Mississippi River and vary in size. Few human-made features cross drainage ways.

Figure 5.30: MRCCA Drainage Ways in Spring Lake Park Reserve

Source: HKGi

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 132 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Bluffs and Bluff Impact Zones MRCCA rules define a bluff as a natural topographic feature having a slope that rises at least 25 feet and a grade for that slope that averages 18 percent or greater, measured over a horizontal distance of 25 feet. The bluff impact zone includes the bluff and land within 20 feet of the bluff. Many bluffs parallel the shoreline, rising from the River into Spring Lake Park Reserve. The center park in Nininger Township is topographically diverse and is primarily bluff and bluff impact zone land. The most notable bluff in the park is Schaar’s Bluff with a dominant bedrock face that rises 150 feet from the water.

Figure 5.31: MRCCA Bluff Impact Zones in Spring Lake Park Reserve

Source: HKGi

Native Plant Communities and Significant Vegetative Stands Native plant communities identified in the Minnesota Biological Survey and County park plans represent the highest quality native plant communities remaining in the Dakota County MRCCA. Significant vegetative stands are plant communities identified by the National Park Service as largely intact and connected and containing a sufficient representation of the original native plant community. Much of this vegetation contributes to the scenic value of the MRCCA.

As seen in the following map, most of the native plant communities in Spring Lake Park Reserve are located along the bluffs and bluff impact areas, based on data collected from the early 1990s to 2012. Large gaps between significant existing vegetative stands, mainly on agricultural land, exist within the park, though recent and future vegetation restoration efforts will close some of these gaps.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 133 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 5.32: MRCCA Vegetation in Spring Lake Park Reserve

Source: HKGi

Cultural and Historic Properties Historic properties are properties with features such as an archaeological site, standing structures, site, district, or other property that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Places, locally designated as a historic site, or are determined to meet the criteria for eligibility.

Archaeological Resources: Three archaeological investigations involving survey have been conducted in Spring Lake Park. The most well-known archaeological investigations were the Spring Lake Archaeology Program salvage excavations conducted by Science Museum of Minnesota archaeologists in the 1950s. For thousands of years, numerous Native American cultures inhabited Spring Lake Park Reserve. Evidence of different pre-European cultures was found in the Lee Mill Cave Site, Ranelius Site, Bud Josephs Site, Sorg Site, Bremer Village Site, Bremer Mounds, and the Hamm Site. To protect sensitive archaeological resources, maps depicting their locations within Spring Lake Park are not included. Most of the sites require additional investigation to determine their current condition and best protection strategy. Given the cultural significance of the site, there is the option to nominate the park as an archaeological district on the National Register of Historic Places. Further information about these sites can be found in the Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan completed for Dakota County in 2003.

Historic Resources: Post-European settlement sites of note include the Minnie Lee house at the base of Schaar’s bluff, Truax Mill, Nininger Town Road, cabin foundations, Historic Nininger City, Humphrey Point, Ranney wells for World War II Ordnance Plant in Rosemount, and others.

Research and Interpretive Works: Studies that investigated the cultural resources of Spring Lake Park Reserve include: • Dakota County archaeological surveys done for park improvement projects • Cultural Resources chapter of the Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan • Mississippi River Regional Trail Cultural Interpretive Plan

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 134 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Unstable Soils and Bedrock Soil is a mixture of sand, gravel, silts, clay, water, and air. The stability of soil can be attributed to the mix of these ingredients and other factors such as frost action, high saturation depth, steep slopes, low soil strength, ponding, high shrink-swell rates, subsidence, and other soil stability issues. Bedrock is lithified rock underlying loose deposits such as soil or alluvium. Karst formations are a form of unstable bedrock and are areas were sinkholes, springs, caverns, and stream sinks may exist. Karst lands in Minnesota are developed in Paleozoic carbonate and sandstone bedrock.

Figure 5.33: MRCCA Unstable Soils and Bedrock in Spring Lake Park Reserve

Source: HKGi

As seen in the above map, soil erosion in Spring Lake Park Reserve ranges from low to high susceptibility. Soils with higher erosion susceptibility in Spring Lake Park Reserve are primarily located along bluffs and steep areas. The Karst Feature Database of Southeastern Minnesota has identified one sinkhole in the vicinity of Spring Lake Park Reserve. The northeast park area and a small portion of the northwestern park lie within a region prone to surface karst feature development. This karst area is the Prairie du Chien Group and is on the Minnesota Karst Lands map of areas underlain by carbonate bedrock with less than 50 feet of sediment cover.

Public River Corridor Views Public river corridor views (PRCVs) are views toward the river from public parkland, historic properties, and public overlooks, as well as views toward bluffs from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore, as seen during the summer months. PRCVs are deemed highly valued by the community and are worth protecting because of the aesthetic value they bring to the MRCCA.

During the comprehensive plan public engagement process, the MRCCA Area was identified on materials on the County web page and on display boards used at public engagement open houses and

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 135 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 stakeholder meetings. The public and stakeholders were invited to comment on the proposed goals, as well as viewsheds that should be protected as part of the MRCCA plan update process.

Dakota County further acknowledges that communities within the County and across the River have identified PRCVs that may include County-operated facilities.

Views to the River from County-Operated Public Places County-operated facilities that provide significant views of the River include: 1. Big Rivers Regional Trail Confluence Overlook (MNDOT land) 2. MRRT Swing Bridge Trailhead (city park land) 3. MRRT Pine Bend Bluffs Trailhead (near Pine Bend Bluffs SNA) 4. Spring Lake Park Reserve Schaar’s Bluff and Mississippi River Regional Trail (MRRT)

View locations within Dakota County are shown in the following map.

Figure 5.34: Public River Corridor Views in Dakota County

Source: Dakota County Office of Planning, 2018

1. Big Rivers Regional Trail (BRRT): The County’s first regional trail was built on an abandoned rail bed along the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers along its northwest border. The BRRT provides significant views of the confluence and views from a Works Progress Administration (WPA) work camp site that

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 136 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

now serves as a major trailhead. The trail also provides ready access to historic downtown Mendota and the historic Sibley House district.

Figure 5.35: View from Big Rivers Regional Trail at the Minnesota-Mississippi Confluence

Source: Dakota County

Changes that would positively affect views along the BRRT would include additional ecological restoration in the corridor. Changes such as extensive vegetative clearing, construction of structures above the tree line, and placement of major utility and transportation facilities may negatively affect this view if done without proper siting, care, and design.

2. Mississippi River Regional Trail (MRRT)-Inver Grove Heights Swing Bridge: The County’s nearly- completed regional trail from South St. Paul to Hastings offers many vantage points with valued views of the River, including from the Swing Bridge in Inver Grove Heights. The trail passes through a mix of district types, including major industries, natural areas, and historic towns.

3. Mississippi River Regional Trail (MRRT)-Pine Bend Bluffs Trailhead: The Pine Bend Bluffs Trailhead in Rosemount is adjacent to the Pine Bend Bluffs State Scientific and Natural Area, and offers highly scenic views of the River and downstream islands from high quality oak savanna.

Changes that would positively affect views along the MRRT would include additional ecological restoration in the corridor. Changes such as extensive vegetative clearing, construction of structures above the tree line, and placement of major utility and transportation facilities may negatively affect this view if done without proper siting, care, and design.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 137 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 5.36: View from Mississippi River Regional Trail at the Inver Grove Hights Swing Bridge Pier

Source: Dakota County Office of Planning

Figure 5.37: View from Mississippi River Regional Trail at Pine Bend Bluffs SNA

Source: Dakota County Office of Planning

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 138 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

4. Spring Lake Park Reserve: The recently constructed Mississippi River Regional Trail through Spring Lake Park Reserve gives park goers many opportunities to experience views of the Mississippi River through the tree canopy. Located atop a newly erected outlook platform, this view toward the river is valuable as a wide-angle, unobstructed view of the Mississippi River corridor that appears to stretch for miles. The view is cohesive and contains primarily intact and unaltered (or appearing to be unaltered) natural landscapes. Human-made structures do exist within this view, but are located far enough in the background that they do not distract the viewer from the natural beauty of the corridor.

Changes that would positively Figure 5.38: Spring Lake View Location affect this view would include additional ecological restoration in the corridor. Added interpretive and wayfinding signage would not directly affect this view, but would contribute to the ability of park-goers to identify features, cities, and wildlife.

Changes such as extensive vegetative clearing, construction of structures above the tree line, and

placement of major utility and Source: HKGi transportation facilities may negatively affect this view if done without proper siting, care, and design.

Figure 5.39: View to the Mississippi River from Spring Lake Park Reserve Overlook

Source: HKGi

Views to Bluffs from the Ordinary High Water Level of the Opposite Shore Schaar’s Bluff, located on the eastern end of Spring Lake Park Reserve, exhibits a dominant bedrock face that rises 150 feet above the water, creating a bluff overlooking the river. The bluff also harbors several unique plant communities. These features are what make this a valuable view. As seen in the figure provided, views of this bluff can be seen from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore in Cottage Grove (Washington County). The presence of residences along the shore line in Cottage Grove looking over the river towards the bluffs further supports the idea that this view is valuable. Views of this bluff area can also be seen from the same shore line further up the Mississippi River.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 139 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Excessive vegetative clearing or the addition of utility transmission lines may negatively affect the views of the bluff in Dakota County. Restoration of natural areas would positively affect this view.

Figure 5.40: Map of Views Toward Bluffs from OHWL on Opposite Shore

Source: HKGi

MRCCA Priorities for Restoration: Spring Lake Park Reserve MRCCA rules identify the highest restoration priority as areas not currently in native vegetation. The majority of Spring Lake Park Reserve is in native vegetation with the exception of a few small pieces of land along the waterfront that were recently purchased from private property owners.

An ecological vision for the entire park and these properties is identified in the 2003 Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan. A more detailed natural resources management plan is scheduled to be developed within the next three to four years for this park, which may modify priorities identified in the 2003 plan.

Maps on the next page depict MRCCA Restoration Priorities and the 2003 Master Plan vision for ecological restoration in Spring Lake Park Reserve.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 140 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Figure 5.41: MRCCA Restoration Priorities in Spring Lake Park Reserve

Source: HKGi

Figure 5.42: 2003 Master Plan Ecological Restoration Vision for Spring Lake Park Reserve

Source: Brauer and Associates

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 141 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Surface Water Uses Surface water uses in Dakota County’s MRCCA include commerce, industry, and recreation, such as barge shipping, boating, sea-plane landing, and paddling. These uses offer economic and recreation benefits but can generate conflicts such as traffic, incompatible hours, and noise, and other issues requiring management. Dakota County does not operate surface water uses as of 2018. The 2003 Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan called for a water trail to the Spring Lake Islands. This trail would be outside of the River’s navigation channel and is believed to not pose a conflict with existing surface water uses.

Water-Oriented Uses Water-oriented uses include commerce, industry, and recreation, such as barge terminals, marinas, boat tour docks, and paddle share launch areas. These features provide benefits, but may pose conflicts such as traffic, incompatible hours, noise, and other issues requiring management. Dakota County does not operate water-oriented uses as of 2018. The Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan proposed several recreation areas along the River – boat launch, water trail camp sites, day use area, picnicking, interpretation, and houseboat cabins. These facilities are believed to not pose conflicts with existing uses.

Open Space and Recreational Facilities Open space and recreational facilities can include parks, trails, scenic overlooks, natural areas, islands, and wildlife areas. These add to the quality of a community and increase access for the public to enjoy the Mississippi River Corridor. Dakota County’s open space and recreational facilities in the MRCCA include Spring Lake Park Reserve, the Big Rivers Regional Trail, and Mississippi River Regional Trail.

Spring Lake Park Reserve The 2003 Master Plan development graphic (below) three major park use areas (Schaar’s Bluff, the Preserve, and the Outdoor Education and Activity Center), each with a unique focus.

Figure 5.43: Open Space and Recreational Facilities in Spring Lake Park Reserve, 2003 Master Plan

Source: Brauer and Associates

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 142 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Greenways Dakota County’s extensive greenway and trail Figure 5.44: Mississippi River Interpretive Plan Nodes system, once fully implemented, will provide a wide range of opportunities for people to experience the Mississippi River via bike, foot, or wheelchair. The County’s primary trails in the MRCCA are the Big Rivers Regional Trail and the Mississippi River Regional Trail. Interpretive plans have been prepared for both of these corridors.

More information on Dakota County recreation facilities and related plans in the MRCCA can be viewed at: https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/planning.

Transportation and Public Utilities Transportation and utility facilities (electricity, gas, water, sewer, stormwater) can have negative impacts on scenic views, habitat, and soil stability. Proper design and development of these facilities can minimize their impacts on the MRCCA.

Various Dakota County Road facilities cross or abut the MRCCA. The following county road Source: Dakota County facilities abut or cross the MRCCA: County Road 43, County Road 45, County Road 8, County Road 4, County Road 6, CSAH 14, CSAH 56, CSAH 42, CSAH 91, CSAH 54, and CSAH 68. These are shown on the “Dakota County Facilities in MRCCA Districts” map earlier in the chapter.

KEY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES Many opportunities exist to further MRCCA protection and enhancement within Dakota County. One of the greatest opportunities within the MRCCA is the growing Dakota County Greenway system and its ability to connect more people to the Mississippi River. The expansion of this system enables those who do not own land along the river an opportunity to experience the natural assets of the MRCCA. Continued ecological restoration is also another opportunity in Spring Lake Park Reserve. Coordinated ecological restoration in conjunction with park development will further support the goals of the MRCCA corridor. Protecting and interpreting the rich historic and cultural resources offer an opportunity at Spring Lake Park Reserve and throughout the entire corridor.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 143 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

POLICIES Dakota County’s policies within the MRCCA are organized by the County’s primary roles in: 1) operation of County facilities (such as roads, parks, and trails), and 2) administration of its Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinance 50. In accordance with MN Rule 6106, Dakota County will use the following:

DRAFT POLICIES FOR OPERATION OF COUNTY ROADS, PARKS, AND GREENWAY FACILITIES

MRCCA Districts and Land Use Policies MR 1. Guide development and redevelopment activities within the MRCCA boundary in Spring Lake Park Reserve to be consistent with the management purpose of the CA-ROS and CA-SR districts. MR 2. Rely on cities and townships in the river corridor to ensure that their Critical Area plans are in accordance with the natural characteristics and character of existing development.

Primary Conservation Area (PCA) Policies MR 3. Protect and minimize impacts to Primary Conservation Areas in Spring Lake Park Reserve, which include floodplains, bluffs and bluff impact zones, natural drainage ways, unstable soils and bedrock, native plant communities, cultural resources, and existing natural vegetative stands through the regional park master planning process that balances recreational use with resource protection. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (1) MR 4. Make restoration of removed Native Plant Communities and natural vegetation in riparian areas a high priority during development. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (1) MR 5. Use evaluation criteria to prioritize PCA types for protection when development sites contain multiple types of PCAs and the total area of PCAs exceeds required set aside percentages. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (1) MR 6. Prioritize use of permanent protection measures (such as permanent conservation easements and fee title acquisitions) that protect the County-identified natural and cultural resources. MR 7. Work with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Dakota County Historical Society, local government units, Native American groups, and other interested parties to encourage efforts to identify, protect, and restore historic sites and structures in the Mississippi River Critical Area corridor.

Public River Corridor Views (PRCV) Policies MR 8. Work with cities and townships to identify open space and viewing areas in the Critical Area. MR 9. Protect and minimize impacts to PRCVs from public and private development activities. MR 10. Protect and minimize impacts to PRCVs from vegetation management activities. MR 11. Protect PRCVs located within the County and identified by other communities. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (2)

Restoration Priorities Policies MR 12. Protect native and natural vegetation while providing recreational facilities in Spring Lake Park Reserve, and restore native/natural vegetation disturbed by recreational facilities, consistent with: 1) the Metropolitan Council’s requirements for Park Reserves, 2) the Park Master Plan, 3) the Park Natural Resources Management Plan, and 4) Rule 6106 guidelines. Restoration

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 144 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

priorities will include stabilization of erodible soils, riparian buffers, and bluffs or steep slopes visible from the river. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (3)

Surface Water Uses Policies MR 13. Dakota County recognizes the importance of commercial surface water uses and will minimize potential conflicts of the County’s recreational facilities with commercial uses when possible. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (4)

Water-Oriented Uses Policies MR 14. Dakota County recognizes the importance of commercial water-oriented uses and will minimize potential conflicts of the County’s recreational facilities with commercial uses when possible. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (5)

Open Space and Recreational Facilities Policies MR 15. Encourage the creation, connection, and maintenance of regionally-significant recreation activities that are centered on the Mississippi River and offer a premier experience while protecting and restoring natural resources. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (7, 8) MR 16. Identify and develop trail corridors in the Critical Area, in concert with resource protection. MR 17. Provide scenic overlooks and spur trails to view or access the River periodically along the Mississippi River Regional Trail. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (7, 8) MR 18. Offer interpretive opportunities to learn about the unique cultural and natural history of lands it manages along the Big Rivers Regional Trail and the Mississippi River Regional Trail and within Spring Lake Park Reserve. MR 19. Provide for basic public sanitation, accessibility, and safety needs at facilities it operates in the MRCCA, using appropriate design and permitting consistent with the size and use of facilities. MR 20. When siting essential public facilities and no practical alternative to locating facilities in shore impact zones or bluff impact zones exists, mitigate in proportion to the impacts and use natural resource-protective design and vegetative screening practices. MR 21. Provide recreational activities and manage natural resources within Spring Lake Park Reserve according to the Park Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan and in accordance with the vegetative management guidelines within MN Rule 6106.

Transportation and Utilities Policies MR 22. Dakota County will minimize impacts to PCAs from transportation and utility facilities, consistent with MN Rule 6106. MR 23. Provide scenic overlooks, pedestrian crossing/facilities, and access to land located between the River and County transportation facilities. MR 29. Manage County road right-of-way according to Rule 6106.0130, Subp 4., ROW maintenance, to protect and restore existing natural vegetation, as practical.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 145 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

General Policies MR 24. Ensure County capital improvement plans and their implementation will follow all applicable state and federal requirements, including Rule 6106. MR 25. Plan and implement County programs and projects in the Critical area in a manner consistent with the Critical Area Act and Rule 6106

DRAFT POLICIES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 50

MRCCA Districts and Land Use Policies MR 26. Maintain and enforce the County Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinance (No. 50) in Nininger and Ravenna townships to ensure consistency with MN Rule 6106. MR 2. Rely on cities and townships in the river corridor to ensure that their Critical Area plans are in accordance with the natural characteristics and character of existing development. (Also referenced under policies for County Facilities) Primary Conservation Area (PCA) Policies MR 27. Support mitigation of impacts to PCAs when variances, Conditional Use Permits, and other permits are issued in the rural shoreland and floodplain areas of MRCCA where the County has permitting authority. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (1)

MR 5. Use evaluation criteria to prioritize PCA types for protection when development sites contain multiple types of PCAs and the total area of PCAs exceeds required set aside percentages. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (1). (Also referenced under policies for County Facilities)

Public River Corridor Views (PRCV) Policies MR 9. Protect and minimize impacts to PRCVs from public and private development activities. (Also referenced under policies for County Facilities)

MR 10. Protect and minimize impacts to PRCVs from vegetation management activities. (Also referenced under policies for County Facilities)

Restoration Priorities Policies MR 28. Seek opportunities to restore natural vegetation through the CUP, variance, and subdivision processes, in administration of the Dakota County Shoreland Floodplain Ordinance. MN Rule 6106.0070, Subp. 4. B. (3)

ACTIONS: Education and Outreach 1. Provide information to residents and park and facility users on County facilities located in the MRCCA, including information on what the MRCCA is and how resources are being protected.

Coordination with Local Jurisdictions (townships and cities) 2. Coordinate with local jurisdictions to support the following in the MRCCA:

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 146 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Ordinance Updates & Administration 2.1. Update Dakota County Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinance (Ordinance 50), as needed, for consistency with MRCCA rules MR 6106.0070, Subp. 5 — Contents of Ordinances. 2.2. Identify any areas where implementation flexibility may be pursued and action needed to support and justify it. 2.3. Update application forms, site plan submittal requirements, and review procedures for consistency with MRCCA rules, as applicable. 2.4. Develop MRCCA design guidelines for County facilities. 2.5. Establish a MRCCA vegetation and variance permit process through Ordinance No. 50 and through the Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resources Management Plan.

Capital Improvements 3. Implement the following projects within the MRCCA identified in the draft 2018–2022 Dakota County Capital Improvement Program (CIP):

Table 5.9: Capital Improvement Plan for Projects within the MRCCA Year Project Map 2018– Greenway Improvements, including soft-surface spur 2022 trails off MRRT in Spring Lake Park Reserve, system- wide signage and kiosks

Projected Costs: $200,000–$290,000 per year

2018– Mississippi River Regional Trail Design and 2019 Construction: Eastern Rosemount to Spring Lake Park Reserve.

Projected Cost: $13.7 M 2018 CSAH 42 Reconstruction: from TH 55 to Lock Blvd for safety and improved traffic flow.

Projected Cost: $7.1 M

2018 Eastern Dakota County Transit Study, to evaluate opportunities to expand transit service. Projected Cost: $200,000 2018 Mississippi River Regional Trail reconstruction in South St. Paul, Simon’s Ravine. Projected Costs: $194,000

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 147 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table 5.9: Capital Improvement Plan for Projects within the MRCCA Year Project Map 2019 Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan Update, with concurrent Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP).

Projected Cost: To be determined (TBD)

2019 Pine Bend Bluffs Historical Marker Relocation: Marker commemorating the village of Chief Medicine Bottle and constructed by National Youth Administration in 1939 was removed from its location on Highway 52 and 117th due to road work. Marker will be replaced at Pine Bend Bluffs trailhead of MRRT.

Projected Cost: $275,000

2020 Big Rivers Regional Trail WPA Trailhead Improvements: Restrooms, drinking water, info kiosk, picnic canopy, added parking.

Projected Cost: $1.6M

2020 Dakota County Museum ADA Improvements: Increase accessibility of entry to and movement within the Museum. Projected Cost: $1.2 M 2021 Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan Improvements, Natural Resources Management, and Acquisitions, based on 2019 master plan update and NRMP.

Projected Improvements Cost: $3.4 M Projected Resource Management Cost: TBD Project Acquisition Cost: TBD

2021 Mississippi River Regional Trail Master Plan Update Projected Cost: TBD

An additional $13.7M are included in the Dakota County 2018–2022 CIP for wetland restoration projects and habitat protection on private lands, which could be applied to eligible properties with willing owners in the MRCCA.

Land Acquisition 4. For actions related to land acquisition in the MRCCA, refer to Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan and County road and greenway plans. www.dakotacounty.us.

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 148 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Specific Planning Efforts, Projects, and Initiatives 5. Update the 2003 Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan and concurrently prepare a detailed Natural Resources Management Plan. 6. Implement the cultural/interpretive plans for the Big Rivers Regional Trail and the Mississippi River Regional Trail

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 149 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Chapter 5: Land Use and Natural Resources, Page 150 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

CHAPTER 6: IMPLEMENTATION This chapter provides an overview of how DC2040 will be implemented. Topics include:

• Implementation processes • CIP Summaries for Transportation, Parks, and Related Areas • County Official Controls • Comprehensive Plan updates • DC2030 Crosswalk

Implementation Processes DC 2040 will be implemented through a range of ongoing and new initiatives, such as the preparation of detailed new plans, incorporation of completed plans and studies, new program development, and updates of County ordinances (official controls). Information on relevant programs and official controls are provided within each topic area in earlier chapters of this plan. Implementation of new and ongoing initiatives generally begins with annual work planning and budgeting processes. All department budgets are subject to review and approval by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners on an annual basis.

As part of its annual budgeting process, Dakota County prepares a five–year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that includes annual capital budgets for physical development projects over the five year plan period. The budgeting process begins in late spring with County Board adoption in December. The CIP is a primary tool for implementing the Board of Commissioners’ goals for park, roadway, trail, and other physical improvement projects, by integrating all projects into one budgeting document with desired timeframes for projects and estimated funding needs, County fiscal resources, and external funding sources. Projects originate from a wide range of County plans and design projects (such as transit and road design studies, park and greenway master plans, and natural resources stewardship plans) that generally identify estimated costs, priorities, and desired phasing.

In addition to being a planning tool, the CIP is used by County departments and divisions, cities, and other agencies to support budget and grant requests and communicate planned projects and collaborative efforts.

CIP Summaries for Transportation, Parks, and Land Conservation The overall Physical Development Division CIP represents approximately 10 percent of the entire County budget. Within the CIP, transportation projects (including transit projects) account for nearly 80 percent of all CIP projects. The remaining 20 percent consists of County facilities, parks, and land conservation efforts. The 2018–2022 CIP was adopted by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners in December 2017. For greater detail on the current CIP and future updates, please refer to www.dakotacounty.us, and search “budget.”

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 151 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING Dakota County works closely with its local communities and State and Regional agencies to develop the Transportation CIP. Projects are organized within the CIP according to Goals 2 through 6 of the Transportation Plan. Goal 1 is to direct limited resources to the highest priority needs of the Transportation System, which directly guides CIP planning. The following table identifies the types of projects included as investment categories for Goals 2 through 6:

Table 6.1 Transportation Investment Categories Goal Investment Categories 2) Transit and Integration of Cedar Avenue Transitway (Bus Rapid Transit) Transportation Modes Interstate 35W Transitway (Bus Rapid Transit) Red Rock Transitway (Bus Rapid Transit) Robert Street Transitway Transit Services Integrating Pedestrian and Bicycling Modes 3) Preservation of the Existing Highway Surface — Bituminous System Highway Surface — Gravel Bridge Rehabilitation Traffic Safety and Operation Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Storm Sewer Maintenance 4) Management to Increase Access Spacing Efficiency, Improve Safety, and 10-Ton County Highway System Minimize Congestion Functional Classification Jurisdictional Classification Traffic Control Devices Roundabouts Safety and Management Traffic Signal Projects Right-of-Way Preservation and Management 5) Replace Deficient Elements Highway Replacement and Reconstruction Bridge Replacement Gravel Road Paving Traffic Signal Replacement 6) Improvement and Lane Additions/Expansion Expansion of Transportation Future County Highway Alignments Corridors Interchanges and Overpasses Future Studies

Projects identified in the approved Transportation CIP for 2018–2022 are summarized on the following pages. Capital Improvement Plans for Transit and the Dakota County Transportation Sales and Use Tax Program are included as separate sections after Transportation.

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 152 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table2018 6.2: 2018 - 2022–2022 CIP Transportation - Transportation Capital Improvement Capital ImprovementPlan, 2018 Section SummaryProgram

PAGE PROJECT ROAD SEGMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY ANNUAL CITY FEDERAL STATE CSAH GRAVEL TAX COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT LEAD # NO. LOCATION COST SHARE (1) & OTHER FUNDS COST AGENCY

2018 Section PRESERVATION: 23 Highway Surface - Bituminous Highway Surface - Bituminous 3,100,000 - - - 1,409,243 200,000 1,490,757 28,560,980 Dakota County 24 42-150 CSAH 42 145th St to CSAH 71 (Blaine Ave) Bituminous Mill & Overlay Rosemount 1,900,000 - 1,520,000 - 380,000 - - 1,900,000 Dakota County 57 46-47 CSAH 46 CR 48 (Coates) to TH 61 Highway Surface - Bituminous Rsmt, Hastings 4,000,000 - - - 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 Dakota County 26 Highway Surface - Gravel 860,000 - - - - - 860,000 4,475,000 Dakota County 27 Highway Surface - Gravel Spot Locations 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 250,000 Dakota County 28 Traffic Control Devices Durable Pavement Markings 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 2,500,000 Dakota County 29 Bike Trail Bike Trail 700,000 - - - - - 700,000 3,500,000 Cities/Others 30 Storm Sewer System Repair Storm Sewer System Repair 500,000 100,000 - - - - 400,000 2,500,000 Dakota County/Cities 2018 Preservation Subtotal: 11,610,000 100,000 1,520,000 - 5,789,243 200,000 4,000,757 -

MANAGEMENT: 31 5-47 At Burnsville Pkwy, At 136th Street Construction Burnsville 835,000 375,750 - - 459,250 - - 835,000 Dakota County 34 9-54 CSAH 9 At Flagstaff Avenue ROW Acquisition Lakeville 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 1,031,600 Lakeville 40 26-47 CSAH 26 At Trunk Highway 3 - Roundabout Construction Inver Grove Heights 2,650,000 238,500 2,120,000 - 291,500 - - 2,650,000 Dak Co/MN DOT 41 26-52 CSAH 26 At CSAH 43 (Lexington Ave) Construction Eagan 2,650,000 238,500 2,120,000 - 291,500 - - 2,650,000 Dakota County CSAH 31 CSAH 31 = 170th Street to CSAH 38 47 31-87 CSAH 46 CSAH 46 = Kenrick Ave to CSAH 31 Construction - ATMS Apple Valley, Lakeville 1,346,200 121,635 1,075,900 - 148,665 - - 1,346,200 Dakota County 51 38-52 CSAH 38 CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob) to TH 3 Construction Apple Valley, Rosemount 2,900,000 789,840 1,144,800 - 965,360 - - 2,900,000 Dakota County 56 42-146 CSAH 42 At TH 55 Intersection Construction Rosemount 640,000 21,150 - 593,000 - - 25,850 640,000 MnDOT 62 71-14 CSAH 71 At TH 3 (part of larger MnDOT project) Construction Inver Grove Heights 380,000 - - - - - 380,000 380,000 MnDOT 64 73-30 CSAH 73 Oakdale (73) & Marie Trail Extension ROW Acquisition West St Paul 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 650,000 West St Paul 85 Jurisdictional Classification 600,000 - - - - - 600,000 2,600,000 Dakota County 86 ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - - 275,000 2,500,000 Dakota County 87 Safety and Management Projects 1,500,000 342,000 - - 275,000 - 883,000 7,500,000 Dakota County 88 Signal Projects - Various Locations Signal Revisions 200,000 100,000 - - 100,000 - - 1,050,000 Dakota County 2018 Management Subtotal: 14,901,200 2,452,375 6,460,700 593,000 2,531,275 - 2,863,850 - REPLACEMENT: 33 8-21 CSAH 8 CSAH 63 (Delaware) to Humboldt Ave ROW Acquisition West St Paul 1,500,000 675,000 - - 825,000 - - 4,765,300 Dakota County 38 23-76 CSAH 23 CSAH 86 (280th St) to CR 96 (Eveleth Ave) ROW Acquisition Greenvale Twp 1,234,600 - - - 1,234,600 - - 8,094,600 Dakota County 55 42-139 CSAH 42 E jct TH 55 to old CR 87 (Lock Blvd) ROW Acquisition Nininger Twp 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 - - 7,100,000 Dakota County 58 50-23 CSAH 50 Holyoke Ave to CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) ROW Acquisition Lakeville 3,145,000 1,415,250 - - 1,729,750 - - 9,645,000 Dakota County 65 78-10 CSAH 78 TH 3 to CSAH 79 (Blaine Ave) ROW Acquisition Castle Rock Township 1,111,200 - - - 1,111,200 - - 8,311,200 Dakota County 70 86-32 CSAH 86 TH 3 to west of CSAH 47 Construction Castle Rock, Waterford & Sciota Twps 5,830,000 - - - 3,830,000 - 2,000,000 5,830,000 Dakota County 72 88-20 CSAH 88 TH 56 to TH 52 ROW Acquisition Randolph Township 1,750,100 - - - 1,750,100 - - 9,750,100 Dakota County 82 97-164 205th St, 0.3 mile W of TH 61 Repalce Bridge L3249 Marshan Township 300,000 - - 280,000 - 20,000 - 300,000 Dakota County 89 Signal Projects - Various Locations Replace/New/Geometric Improve 2,330,000 625,000 - - 1,705,000 - - 9,350,000 Dakota County ------2018 Replacement Subtotal: 18,700,900 2,715,250 - 280,000 13,685,650 20,000 2,000,000 - EXPANSION: 83 97-XX 179th Street future CSAH Design/Construction Lakeville 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 500,000 Lakeville 2018 Expansion Subtotal: 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 -

*2018 Projects continuted on next page

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 153 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table 6.2: 2018–2022 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan, 2018 Section Summary continued

PAGE PROJECT ROAD SEGMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY ANNUAL CITY FEDERAL STATE CSAH GRAVEL TAX COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT LEAD # NO. LOCATION COST SHARE (1) & OTHER FUNDS COST AGENCY

RESOURCES: 35 9-55 CSAH 9 At CSAH 50 & 3/4 at Icenic, Heritage Design Lakeville 480,000 216,000 - - 264,000 - - 4,855,000 Dakota County 42 26-54 CSAH 26 TH 55 to TH 3 Design Eagan, Inver Grove Heights 940,000 380,000 - - 560,000 - - 19,240,000 Dakota County 43 26-56 CSAH 26 CSAH 26, CSAH 28, CSAH 31, CSAH 43 Design Eagan 154,000 69,300 - - 84,700 - - 1,817,200 Dakota County 32-87 CSAH 32 CSAH 43 (Lexington) to TH 3 Design Study Eagan 200,000 90,000 - - - - 110,000 200,000 Dakota County 53 42-124 CSAH 42 CSAH 42 Corridor Intersection Proj Design Apple Valley 720,200 266,625 - - 453,575 - - - Dakota County 54 42-126 CSAH 42 At Southcross Dr Design Burnsville 80,000 40,000 - - 40,000 - - 80,000 Dakota County 80 28-59 CSAH 28 Amana Trail Traffic Control & Ped Improve Design Inver Grove Heights 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 100,000 Inver Grove Heights 59 62-26 CSAH 62 Realign CSAH 62; turnlanes on CSAH 47 Design Vermillion Township 250,000 - - - 250,000 - - 1,950,000 Dakota County 60 63-27 New "63" CSAH 26 to north new alignment Design Inver Grove Heights 228,600 102,870 - - - - 125,730 4,073,400 Dakota County 61 66-15 CSAH 66 At TH 52 Design/Study Vermillion Township 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 500,000 Dakota County 66 78-12 CSAH 78 CSAH 79 (Blaine) to CSAH 47 Design Castle Rock Twp, Hampton 208,900 - - - 83,600 - 125,300 5,493,700 Dakota County 80-12 CSAH 80 CSAH 23 to TH 3 Design- RR Bridge Castle Rock, Eureka Twp 255,000 - - - 255,000 - - 13,496,124 Dakota County 71 86-34 CSAH 86 CSAH 23 to TH 3 Design Eureka, Castle Rock, Greenvale and Waterford 550,000 - - - 550,000 - - 13,478,300 Dakota County 75 91-25 CSAH 91 TH 50 (240th St) to 210th St Design Miesville, Douglas, Marshan 403,600 - - - 403,600 - - 10,405,000 Dakota County 81 97-163 New CR CSAH 9 (Dodd Blvd) to CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) Design Lakeville 300,000 - - - - - 300,000 300,000 Lakeville 84 97-189 Eastern Dakota County Transit Study Transit Study Eastern Dak Co 200,000 40,000 - - - - 160,000 200,000 Dakota County 91 Attorney Reimbursement 237,317 - - - - - 237,317 1,222,721 Dakota County 92 CIP Reimbursement to Operations 4,913,626 1,024,399 - - 1,869,705 - 2,019,522 26,087,108 Dakota County 93 Future Studies/Professional Services 300,000 135,000 - - - - 165,000 1,500,000 Dak Co/Consultant 94 Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - - 20,900 104,500 Dakota County 95 Consultant Construction Administration 750,000 - - - 375,000 - 375,000 3,400,000 2018 Resources Subtotal: 11,792,143 2,364,194 - - 5,189,180 - 4,238,769 - 2018 Total: 57,504,243 7,631,819 7,980,700 873,000 27,195,348 220,000 13,603,376 -

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 154 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.3: 2018–2022 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan, 2019 Section Summary

PAGE PROJECT ROAD SEGMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY ANNUAL CITY FEDERAL STATE CSAH GRAVEL TAX COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT LEAD # NO. LOCATION COST SHARE (1) & OTHER FUNDS COST AGENCY 2019 Section PRESERVATION: 23 Highway Surface - Bituminous 6,365,245 - - - 4,419,000 200,000 1,746,245 28,560,980 Dakota County 25 42-149 CSAH 42 CSAH 5 to CSAH 11 Bituminous Mill & Overlay Burnsville 1,800,000 - 1,440,000 - 360,000 - - 1,800,000 Dakota County 26 Highway Surface - Gravel 885,000 - - - - - 885,000 4,475,000 27 Highway Surface - Gravel Spot Locations 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 250,000 Dakota County 28 Traffic Control Devices Durable Pavement Markings 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 2,500,000 Dakota County 29 Bike Trail 700,000 - - - - - 700,000 3,500,000 Cities/Others 30 Storm Sewer System Repair 500,000 100,000 - - - - 400,000 2,500,000 Dakota County/Cities 2019 Preservation Subtotal: 10,800,245 100,000 1,440,000 - 4,779,000 200,000 4,281,245 - MANAGEMENT: 34 9-54 CSAH 9 At Flagstaff Avenue Construction Lakeville 831,600 - - - 631,600 - 200,000 1,031,600 Lakeville 43 26-56 CSAH 26 CSAH 26, CSAH 28, CSAH 31, CSAH 43 Construction - ATMS Eagan 1,663,200 149,688 1,330,560 - 182,952 - - 1,817,200 Dakota County 49 32-91 CSAH 32 Dupont Ave to I-35 SB Ramp Construct - Roundabout Burnsville 300,000 - - - 300,000 - - 300,000 Burnsville 59 62-26 CSAH 62 Realign CSAH 62; turnlanes on CSAH 47 ROW Acquisition Vermillion Township 200,000 - - - 200,000 - - 1,950,000 Dakota County 64 73-30 CSAH 73 Oakdale (73) & Marie Trail Extension Trail Construction West St Paul 150,000 - - - - - 150,000 650,000 West St Paul 85 Jurisdictional Classification 600,000 - - - - - 600,000 2,600,000 Dakota County 86 ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - - 275,000 2,500,000 Dakota County 87 Safety and Management Projects 1,500,000 342,000 - - 275,000 - 883,000 7,500,000 Dakota County 88 Signal Projects - Various Locations Signal Revisions 250,000 - - - 250,000 - - 1,050,000 Dakota County 2019 Management Subtotal: 5,994,800 716,688 1,330,560 - 1,839,552 - 2,108,000 - REPLACEMENT: 33 8-21 CSAH 8 CSAH 63 (Delaware) to Humboldt Ave Construction West St Paul 3,265,300 1,026,585 984,000 - 1,254,715 - - 4,765,300 Dakota County 38 23-76 CSAH 23 CSAH 86 (280th St) to CR 96 (Eveleth Ave) Construction Greenvale Twp 6,860,000 - - - 4,860,000 - 2,000,000 8,094,600 Dakota County 53 42-124 CSAH 42 CSAH 42 Corridor ROW Acquisition Apple Valley 2,275,000 956,250 - - 1,318,750 - - 8,179,200 Dakota County 55 42-139 CSAH 42 E jct TH 55 to old CR 87 (Lock Blvd) Construction Nininger Twp 5,600,000 - - - 3,600,000 - 2,000,000 7,100,000 Dakota County 58 50-23 CSAH 50 Holyoke Ave to CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) Construction Lakeville 6,500,000 1,485,000 3,200,000 - 1,815,000 - - 9,645,000 Dakota County 63 73-19 CSAH 73 Bonaire Path to IGH/Rosemount line ROW Acquisition Rosemount 750,000 337,500 - - - - 412,500 4,710,000 Dakota County 65 78-10 CSAH 78 TH 3 to CSAH 79 (Blaine Ave) Construction Castle Rock Township 7,200,000 - - - 4,200,000 - 3,000,000 8,311,200 Dakota County 66 78-12 CSAH 78 CSAH 79 (Blaine) to CSAH 47 ROW Acquisition Castle Rock Twp, Hampton 1,044,800 - - - 1,044,800 - - 5,493,700 Dakota County 71 86-34 CSAH 86 CSAH 23 to TH 3 ROW Acquisition Eureka, Castle Rock, Greenvale and Waterford 1,928,300 - - - 1,928,300 - - 13,478,300 Dakota County 72 88-20 CSAH 88 TH 56 to TH 52 Construction Randolph Township 8,000,000 - - - 4,000,000 - 4,000,000 9,750,100 Dakota County 75 91-25 CSAH 91 TH 50 (240th St) to 210th St ROW Acquisition Miesville, Douglas, Marshan 1,782,000 - - - 1,782,000 - - 10,405,000 Dakota County 89 Signal Projects - Various Locations Replace/New/Geometric Improve 1,020,000 262,500 - - 757,500 - - 9,350,000 Dakota County 90 Replacement Projects/Turnbacks Design 1,250,000 - - - - - 1,250,000 10,850,000 Dakota County 2019 Replacement Subtotal: 47,475,400 4,067,835 4,184,000 - 26,561,065 - 12,662,500

EXPANSION: 35 9-55 CSAH 9 At CSAH 50 & 3/4 at Icenic, Heritage ROW Acquisition Lakeville 1,250,000 562,500 - - 687,500 - - 4,855,000 Dakota County 42 26-54 CSAH 26 TH 55 to TH 3 ROW Acquisition Eagan, Inver Grove Heights 5,500,000 2,500,000 - - 3,000,000 - - 19,240,000 Dakota County 60 63-27 New "63" CSAH 26 to north new alignment ROW Acquisition Inver Grove Heights 1,102,100 495,945 - - - - 606,155 4,073,400 Dakota County 2019 Expansion Subtotal: 7,852,100 3,558,445 - - 3,687,500 - 606,155 - RESOURCES: 32 6-06 CR 6 At CSAH 73 (Oakdale Ave) Design West St Paul 230,000 103,500 - - - - 126,500 2,105,000 Dakota County 36 9-56 CSAH 9 Gerdine Path to Dodd Lane Design Lakeville 408,300 183,735 - - 224,565 - - 7,265,250 Dakota County 53 42-124 CSAH 42 CSAH 42 Corridor Consultant Construction AdministrationApple Valley 384,000 129,600 - - 254,400 - - - Dakota County 67 80-12 CSAH 80 CSAH 23 to TH 3 Design Castle Rock, Eureka Twp 297,124 - - - 297,124 - - 13,496,124 Dakota County 76 91-29 CSAH 91 210th St to TH 316 Design Marshan Twp 375,000 - - - 150,000 - 225,000 6,375,000 Dakota County 77 91-30 CSAH 91 Miesville Trail to TH 61 Design Miesville, Douglas Twp 250,000 - - - 100,000 - 150,000 4,075,000 Dakota County 79 96-07 CSAH 96 West Dak Co line to CSAH 23 Design Greenvale Township 378,000 - - - - - 378,000 8,310,400 Dakota County 91 Attorney Reimbursement 240,877 - - - - - 240,877 1,222,721 Dakota County 92 CIP Reimbursement to Operations 5,061,035 1,055,131 - - 1,925,796 - 2,080,108 26,087,108 Dakota County 93 Future Studies/Professional Services 300,000 135,000 - - - - 165,000 1,500,000 Dak Co/Consultant 94 Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - - 20,900 104,500 Dakota County 95 Consultant Construction Administration 850,000 - - - 425,000 - 425,000 3,400,000 Consultant 2019 Resources Subtotal: 8,795,236 1,606,966 - - 3,376,885 - 3,811,385 -

2019 TOTAL: 80,917,781 10,049,934 6,954,560 - 40,244,002 200,000 23,469,285

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 155 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.4: 2018–2022 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan, 2020 Section Summary

PAGE PROJECT ROAD SEGMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY ANNUAL CITY FEDERAL STATE CSAH GRAVEL TAX COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT LEAD # NO. LOCATION COST SHARE (1) & OTHER FUNDS COST AGENCY 2020 Section PRESERVATION: 23 Highway Surface - Bituminous Highway Surface - Bituminous 6,365,245 - - - 4,419,000 200,000 1,746,245 28,560,980 Dakota County 26 Highway Surface - Gravel 910,000 - - - - - 910,000 4,475,000 Dakota County 27 Highway Surface - Gravel Spot Locations 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 250,000 Dakota County 28 Traffic Control Devices 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 2,500,000 Dakota County 29 Bike Trail 700,000 - - - - - 700,000 3,500,000 Cities/Others 30 Storm Sewer System Repair 500,000 100,000 - - - - 400,000 2,500,000 Dakota County/Cities 2020 Preservation Subtotal: 9,025,245 100,000 - - 4,419,000 200,000 4,306,245 - MANAGEMENT: 32 6-06 CR 6 At CSAH 73 (Oakdale Ave) ROW Acquisition West St Paul 325,000 146,250 - - - - 178,750 2,105,000 Dakota County 36 9-56 CSAH 9 Gerdine Path to Dodd Lane ROW Acquisition Lakeville 1,959,000 881,550 - - 1,077,450 - - 7,265,250 Dakota County 46 31-79 CSAH 31 At CSAH 32 Signal Rep - Dbl Left Turns ROW Acquistion Eagan 1,570,000 706,500 - - 863,500 - - 5,488,700 Dakota County 52 38-AV CSAH 38 Placeholder - limits TBD Repair/Replace Retaining Walls Apple Valley 500,000 - - - 500,000 - - 500,000 Dakota County 59 62-26 CSAH 62 Realign CSAH 62; turnlanes on CSAH 47 Construction Vermillion Township 1,500,000 - - - 900,000 - 600,000 1,950,000 Dakota County 85 Jurisdictional Classification 600,000 - - - - - 600,000 2,600,000 Dakota County 86 ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - - 275,000 2,500,000 Dakota County 87 Safety and Management Projects 1,500,000 342,000 - - 275,000 - 883,000 7,500,000 Dakota County 88 Signal Projects - Various Locations Signal Revisions 200,000 100,000 - - 100,000 - - 1,050,000 Dakota County 2020 Management Subtotal: 8,654,000 2,401,300 - - 3,715,950 - 2,536,750 - REPLACEMENT: 53 42-124 CSAH 42 CSAH 42 Corridor Construction Apple Valley 4,800,000 1,620,000 - - 3,180,000 - - 8,179,200 Dakota County 63 73-19 CSAH 73 Bonaire Path to IGH/Rosemount line Construction Rosemount 3,960,000 1,320,000 - - - - 2,640,000 4,710,000 Dakota County 66 78-12 CSAH 78 CSAH 79 (Blaine) to CSAH 47 Construction (+ new Bridge) Castle Rock Twp, Hampton 4,240,000 - - - 2,240,000 - 2,000,000 5,493,700 Dakota County 67 80-12 CSAH 80 CSAH 23 to TH 3 ROW Acqusition Castle Rock, Eureka Twp 2,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 13,496,124 Dakota County 71 86-34 CSAH 86 CSAH 23 to TH 3 Construction Eureka, Castle Rock, Greenvale and Waterford 11,000,000 - 4,200,000 - 3,800,000 - 3,000,000 13,478,300 Dakota County 75 91-25 CSAH 91 TH 50 (240th St) to 210th St Construction Miesville, Douglas, Marshan 8,219,400 - - - 2,219,400 - 6,000,000 10,405,000 Dakota County 76 91-29 CSAH 91 210th St to TH 316 ROW Acquisition Marshan Twp 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 - - 6,375,000 Dakota County 77 91-30 CSAH 91 Miesville Trail to TH 61 ROW Acquisition Miesville, Douglas Twp 825,000 - - - 825,000 - - 4,075,000 Dakota County 79 96-07 CR 96 West Dak Co line to CSAH 23 ROW Acquisition Greenvale Township 1,632,400 - - - - - 1,632,400 8,310,400 Dakota County 89 Signal Projects - Various Locations Replace/New/Geometric Improve 2,000,000 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 - - 9,350,000 Dakota County 90 Replacement Projects/Turnbacks ROW Acquisition 2,250,000 - - - - - 2,250,000 10,850,000 Dakota County 2020 Replacement Subtotal: 42,426,800 3,940,000 4,200,000 - 15,764,400 - 18,522,400 - EXPANSION: 35 9-55 CSAH 9 At CSAH 50 & 3/4 at Icenic, Heritage Construction Lakeville 3,125,000 1,406,250 - - 1,000,000 - 718,750 4,855,000 Dakota County 42 26-54 CSAH 26 TH 55 to TH 3 Construction Eagan, Inver Grove Heights 12,800,000 5,760,000 - - 4,000,000 - 3,040,000 19,240,000 Dakota County 60 63-27 New "63" CSAH 26 to north new alignment Construction Inver Grove Heights 2,742,700 1,234,215 - - - - 1,508,485 4,073,400 Dakota County 2020 Expansion Subtotal: 18,667,700 8,400,465 - - 5,000,000 - 5,267,235 - RESOURCES: 39 23-BRT CSAH 23 At 140th Street Design Ped Overpass Apple Valley 300,000 60,000 - - - - 240,000 4,000,000 Dakota County 50 33-15 CSAH 33 At 140th/Connemara Design Apple Valley/Rosemount 200,000 90,000 - - 110,000 - - 2,500,000 Dakota County 68 81-14 New "81" CSAH 66 (200th St) to CSAH 46/48 Design Empire Township 244,800 - - - 244,800 - - 5,969,100 Dakota County 69 83-10 CR 83 CSAH 88 (292nd St) to Cannon River Design Randolph City/Township 53,000 - - - - - 53,000 1,293,300 Dakota County 73 88-23 CSAH 88 CR 94 (Cooper Ave) to TH 56 Design City of Randolph 272,200 - - - 162,200 - 110,000 4,843,500 Dakota County 74 89-07 CR 89 TH 50 (240th St) to CSAH 62 Design Hampton, Douglas, Marshan Twps 481,400 - - - - - 481,400 11,739,200 Dakota County 91 Attorney Reimbursement 244,490 - - - - - 244,490 1,222,721 Dakota County 92 CIP Reimbursement to Operations 5,212,866 1,086,785 - - 1,983,570 - 2,142,511 26,087,108 Dakota County 93 Future Studies/Professional Services 300,000 135,000 - - - - 165,000 1,500,000 Dak Co/Consultant 94 Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - - 20,900 104,500 Dakota County 95 Consultant Construction Administration 600,000 - - - 300,000 - 300,000 3,400,000 Consultant 2020 Resources Subtotal: 7,929,656 1,371,785 - - 2,800,570 - 3,757,301 - 2020 TOTAL: 86,703,401 16,213,550 4,200,000 - 31,699,920 200,000 34,389,931 -

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 156 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.5: 2018–2022 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan, 2021 Section Summary

PAGE PROJECT ROAD SEGMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY ANNUAL CITY FEDERAL STATE CSAH GRAVEL TAX COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT LEAD # NO. LOCATION COST SHARE (1) & OTHER FUNDS COST AGENCY 2021 Section PRESERVATION: 23 Highway Surface - Bituminous 6,365,245 - - - 4,419,000 200,000 1,746,245 28,560,980 Dakota County 26 Highway Surface - Gravel 910,000 - - - - - 910,000 4,475,000 Dakota County 27 Highway Surface - Gravel Spot Locations 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 250,000 Dakota County 28 Traffic Control Devices Durable Pavement Markings 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 2,500,000 Dakota County 29 Bike Trail 700,000 - - - - - 700,000 3,500,000 Cities/Others 30 Storm Sewer System Repair 500,000 100,000 - - - - 400,000 2,500,000 Dakota County/Cities 2021 Preservation Subtotal: 9,025,245 100,000 - - 4,419,000 200,000 4,306,245 -

MANAGEMENT: 32 6-06 CR 6 At CSAH 73 (Oakdale Ave) Construction West St Paul 1,550,000 69,750 1,395,000 - - - 85,250 2,105,000 Dakota County 36 9-56 CSAH 9 Gerdine Path to Dodd Lane Construction Lakeville 4,897,950 2,204,075 - - 2,693,875 - - 7,265,250 Dakota County 37 11-27 CSAH 11 At Burnsville Parkway Construction Burnsville 350,000 157,500 - - 192,500 - - 350,000 Dakota County 39 23-BRT CSAH 23 At 140th Street ROW Acq Ped Overpass Apple Valley 700,000 140,000 - - - - 560,000 4,000,000 Dakota County 46 31-79 CSAH 31 At CSAH 32 Signal Rep - Dbl Left Turns Construction Eagan 3,918,700 353,115 3,134,000 - 431,585 - - 5,488,700 Dakota County 50 33-15 CSAH 33 At 140th/Connemara ROW Acquisition Apple Valley/Rosemount 350,000 157,500 - - 192,500 - - 2,500,000 Dakota County 69 83-10 CR 83 CSAH 88 (292nd St) to Cannon River ROW Acquisition Randolph City/Township 265,300 - - - - - 265,300 1,293,300 Dakota County 73 88-23 CSAH 88 CR 94 (Cooper Ave) to TH 56 ROW Acquisition City of Randolph 1,306,000 - - - 1,306,000 - - 4,843,500 Dakota County 85 Jurisdictional Classification 400,000 - - - - - 400,000 2,600,000 Dakota County 86 ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - - 275,000 2,500,000 Dakota County 87 Safety and Management Projects 1,500,000 342,000 - - 275,000 - 883,000 7,500,000 Dakota County 88 Signal Projects - Various Locations Signal Revisions 200,000 100,000 - - 100,000 - - 1,050,000 Dakota County 2021 Management Subtotal: 15,937,950 3,748,940 4,529,000 - 5,191,460 - 2,468,550 -

REPLACEMENT: 67 80-12 CSAH 80 CSAH 23 to TH 3 Construction (+Bridge) Castle Rock, Eureka Twp 10,944,000 - - - 10,944,000 - - 13,496,124 Dakota County 68 81-14 New "81" CSAH 66 (200th St) to CSAH 46/48 ROW Acquisition Empire Township 1,224,300 - - - 1,224,300 - - 5,969,100 Dakota County 74 89-07 CR 89 TH 50 (240th St) to CSAH 62 ROW Acquisition Hampton, Douglas, Marshan Twps 2,407,800 - - - - - 2,407,800 11,739,200 Dakota County 76 91-29 CSAH 91 210th St to TH 316 Construction Marshan Twp 4,500,000 - - - 4,000,000 - 500,000 6,375,000 Dakota County 77 91-30 CSAH 91 Miesville Trail to TH 61 Construction Miesville, Douglas Twp 3,000,000 - - - 2,501,865 - 498,135 4,075,000 Dakota County 79 96-07 CR 96 West Dak Co line to CSAH 23 Construction Greenvale Township 6,300,000 - - - - - 6,300,000 8,310,400 Dakota County 90 Replacement Projects/Turnbacks Construction 7,350,000 - - - - - 7,350,000 10,850,000 Dakota County 89 Signal Projects - Various Locations Replace/New/Geometric Improve 2,000,000 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 - - 9,350,000 Dakota County 2021 Replacement Subtotal: 37,726,100 1,000,000 - - 19,670,165 - 17,055,935 -

EXPANSION: 45 28-48 CSAH 28 TH 3 to 0.62 mile east ROW Acquisition Inver Grove Heights 1,056,000 475,200 - - 580,800 - - 1,656,000 Inver Grove Heights 2021 Expansion Subtotal: 1,056,000 475,200 - - 580,800 - - -

RESOURCES: 44 28-44 CSAH 28 At Elrene Rd, at Mike Collins Dr Design Eagan 40,000 18,000 - - 22,000 - - 440,000 Dakota County 91 Attorney Reimbursement 248,157 - - - - - 248,157 1,222,721 Dakota County 92 CIP Reimbursement to Operations 5,369,252 1,119,388 - - 2,043,078 - 2,206,786 26,087,108 Dakota County 93 Future Studies/Professional Services 300,000 135,000 - - - - 165,000 1,500,000 Dak Co/Consultant 94 Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - - 20,900 104,500 Dakota County 95 Consultant Construction Administration 600,000 - - - 300,000 - 300,000 3,400,000 Consultant 2021 Resources Subtotal: 6,578,309 1,272,388 - - 2,365,078 - 2,940,843 -

2021 TOTAL: 70,323,604 6,596,528 4,529,000 - 32,226,503 200,000 26,771,573

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 157 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.6: 2018–2022 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan, 2022 Section Summary

PAGE PROJECT ROAD SEGMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY ANNUAL CITY FEDERAL STATE CSAH GRAVEL TAX COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT LEAD # NO. LOCATION COST SHARE (1) & OTHER FUNDS COST AGENCY 2022 Section PRESERVATION: 23 Highway Surface - Bituminous 6,365,245 - - - 4,419,000 200,000 1,746,245 28,560,980 Dakota County 26 Highway Surface - Gravel 910,000 - - - - - 910,000 4,475,000 Dakota County 27 Spot Locations Highway Surface - Gravel 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 250,000 Dakota County 28 Traffic Control Devices 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 2,500,000 Dakota County 29 Bike Trail 700,000 - - - - - 700,000 3,500,000 Cities/Others 30 Storm Sewer System Repair 500,000 100,000 - - - - 400,000 2,500,000 Dakota County/Cities 2022 Preservation Subtotal: 9,025,245 100,000 - - 4,419,000 200,000 4,306,245 -

MANAGEMENT: 39 23-BRT CSAH 23 At 140th Street Construct Ped Overpass Apple Valley 3,000,000 120,000 2,400,000 - - - 480,000 4,000,000 Dakota County 44 28-44 CSAH 28 At Elrene Rd, at Mike Collins Dr Construction Eagan 400,000 180,000 - - 220,000 - - 440,000 Dakota County 50 33-15 CSAH 33 At 140th/Connemara Construction Apple Valley/Rosemount 1,950,000 877,500 - - 1,072,500 - - 2,500,000 Dakota County 68 81-14 New "81" CSAH 66 (200th St) to CSAH 46/48 Construction Empire Township 4,500,000 - - - 4,500,000 - - 5,969,100 Dakota County 69 83-10 CR 83 CSAH 88 (292nd St) to Cannon River Construction Randolph City/Township 975,000 - - - - - 975,000 1,293,300 Dakota County 73 88-23 CSAH 88 CR 94 (Cooper Ave) to TH 56 Construction City of Randolph 3,265,300 - - - 3,265,300 - - 4,843,500 Dakota County 85 Jurisdictional Classification 400,000 - - - - - 400,000 2,600,000 Dakota County 86 ROW Preservation & Management 500,000 225,000 - - - - 275,000 2,500,000 Dakota County 87 Safety and Management Projects 1,500,000 342,000 - - 275,000 - 883,000 7,500,000 Dakota County 88 Signal Projects - Various Locations Signal Revisions 200,000 100,000 - - 100,000 - - 1,050,000 Dakota County 2022 Management Subtotal: 16,690,300 1,844,500 2,400,000 - 9,432,800 - 3,013,000 -

REPLACEMENT: 74 89-07 CR 89 TH 50 (240th St) to CSAH 62 Construction Hampton, Douglas, Marshan Twps 8,850,000 - - - - - 8,850,000 11,739,200 Dakota County 89 Signal Projects - Various Locations Replace/New/Geometric Improve 2,000,000 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 - - 9,350,000 Dakota County 2022 Replacement Subtotal: 10,850,000 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 - 8,850,000 -

EXPANSION: 45 28-48 CSAH 28 TH 3 to 0.62 mile east Construction Inver Grove Heights 600,000 - - - 600,000 - - 1,656,000 Inver Grove Heights 2022 Expansion Subtotal: 600,000 - - - 600,000 - - -

RESOURCES: 78 94-05 CR 94 CSAH 47 to CSAH 88 (292nd St) Design Waterford, Sciota, Randolph 432,500 - - - - - 432,500 432,500 Dakota County 91 Attorney Reimbursement 251,880 - - - - - 251,880 1,222,721 Dakota County 92 CIP Reimbursement to Operations 5,530,329 1,152,970 - - 2,104,370 - 2,272,989 26,087,108 Dakota County 93 Future Studies/Professional Services 300,000 135,000 - - - - 165,000 1,500,000 Dak Co/Consultant 94 Township Road Distribution 20,900 - - - - - 20,900 104,500 Dakota County 95 Consultant Construction Administration 600,000 - - - 300,000 - 300,000 3,400,000 Consultant 2022 Resources Subtotal: 7,135,609 1,287,970 - - 2,404,370 - 3,443,269 -

2022 TOTAL: 44,301,154 4,232,470 2,400,000 - 17,856,170 200,000 19,612,514 -

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 158 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.7: 2018–2022 Regional Rail Authority Capital Improvement Program (includes Transit)

In 1987, the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority (RRA) was formed under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 398A, which allows broad powers for the RRA to plan, acquire, and construct railroads, including light rail transit (LRT). Minnesota Statutes 398A.04 authorizes the RRA to plan, establish, acquire, develop, purchase, enlarge, extend, improve, maintain, equip, regulate, and protect and pay costs of construction and operation of a bus rapid transit system in its county on transitways included in and approved by the Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan. Within the powers granted by statutes, the RRA evaluates modes of transportation to reduce congestion, improve mobility, and provide alternative forms of transportation. Many initiatives supported by the RRA are funded by a combination of federal, state, Dakota County, local agencies, and Authority funds.

PAGE PROJECT JL Key PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANNUAL CITY FEDERAL STATE MET COUNCIL MVTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TOTAL PROJECT LEAD # NO. COST SHARE (1) SALES & USE TAX FUNDS COST AGENCY

2018 Section 4 RR00001 RR00001 METRO Orange Line - Phase I Authority and CTIB Share 3,221,750 ------3,221,750 5,802,834 Met Council 5 RR00002 RR00002 METRO Orange Line Extension Preliminary Design/Environmental 300,000 ------300,000 10,500,000 Met Council 6 RR00003 RR00003 Apple Valley Transit Station Design 64,250 ------64,250 1,284,984 MVTA 2018 Total 3,586,000 ------3,586,000 17,587,818

2019 Section 4 RR00001 RR00001 METRO Orange Line - Phase I Authority & CTIB Share 2,181,084 ------2,181,084 5,802,834 Met Council 5 RR00002 RR00002 METRO Orange Line Extension Design 285,000 ------285,000 10,500,000 Met Council NEW NEW Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements METRO Red Line 100,000 20,000 - - - - - 80,000 222,926 Authority 8 NEW NEW Palomino Station and Transit Travel Lane Study Contingent upon TH77 MnPass Evaluation 250,000 - - - - 112,500 - 137,500 250,000 Authority 2019 Total 2,816,084 20,000 - - - 112,500 - 2,683,584 16,775,760

2020 Section 5 RR00002 RR00002 METRO Orange Line Extension Construction 9,915,000 - 7,000,000 1,050,000 - - - 1,865,000 10,500,000 Met Council 10 NEW NEW Cliff Road Walk-up Station - METRO Red Line Design 433,360 - - - - - 433,360 2,600,160 Met Council 2020 Total 10,348,360 - 7,000,000 1,050,000 - - - 2,298,360 13,100,160

2021 Section 10 NEW NEW Cliff Road Walk-up Station - METRO Red Line Construction 2,166,800 - 1,733,440 - 433,360 - - - 2,600,160 Met Council 8 NEW NEW METRO Red Line - Palomino Station Preliminary Design/Environmental 1,742,100 - - 1,045,260 - - 696,840 - 33,000,000 TBD 2021 Total 3,908,900 - 1,733,440 1,045,260 433,360 - 696,840 - 35,600,160

2022 Section NEW NEW 0 METRO Red Line 122,926 24,585 - - - - 98,341 - 222,926 Authority 9 NEW NEW Robert Street Transitway Design 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 - 30,603,154 Authority 11 NEW NEW METRO Red Line - Palomino Station Design 1,742,100 - - 1,045,260 348,420 - 348,420 - 33,000,000 TBD 12 NEW NEW METRO Red Line - Implementation Plan Update METRO Red Line 491,702 - - - - - 491,702 - 491,702 TBD 2022 Total 2,456,728 24,585 - 1,045,260 348,420 - 1,038,463 - 64,317,782

Note: (1) Cost share policy subject to change, actual project cost to be determined based TRANSPORTATION on Adopted County Policy at time of Joint Powers Agreement. YEAR ANNUAL COST CITY SHARE FEDERAL STATE MET COUNCIL MVTA SALES & USE TAX AUTHORITY FUNDS 2018 3,586,000 ------3,586,000 2019 2,816,084 20,000 - - - 112,500 - 2,683,584 2020 10,348,360 - 7,000,000 1,050,000 - - - 2,298,360 2021 3,908,900 - 1,733,440 1,045,260 433,360 - 696,840 - 2022 2,456,728 24,585 - 1,045,260 348,420 - 1,038,463 -

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 159 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.8: 2018–2022 Transportation Sales Tax Capital Improvement Plan

Following the CTIB dissolution, Dakota County was eligible to enact the Greater Minnesota Transportation Sales and Use Tax (Sales and Use Tax) authorized under Minn. Stat. Minn. Stat. §297A.993 for counties not included in CTIB. In June of 2017, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners enacted a one-quarter (.25%) percent sales and use tax and an excise tax of $20 per motor vehicle to match the tax rate of the previous CTIB tax. Dakota County also designated the use of the Sales and Use Tax for regional transportation projects that meet the following criteria:

• Regional Transitway Capital and Operating Costs • Regional County Highway Projects: principal arterials, highways with greater than one-half-mile access spacing, 10-ton highway expansion, and four-Lane County Highways on new alignment • Transit Service Expansion Capital and Operating costs • Regional Trail projects to match federal transportation funds

PAGE PROJECT PROJECT TYPE PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANNUAL CITY FEDERAL SALES TAX TOTAL PROJECT LEAD # NO. COST SHARE (1) FUNDING COST AGENCY

2018 Section Capital Improvement Program: 7 NEW Regional County Highway Project Reconstruction of CSAH 70 from east of I-35 to CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) in Lakeville Preliminary Design 1,750,000 787,500 - 962,500 21,875,000 Dakota County 8 NEW Regional Trail Project Reimburse Parks CIP: MRRT Rosemount East Construction 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 2,000,000 Dakota County 9 NEW Transit Service Expansion MVTA Bus Shelter Pads and Installation Various Locations 25,000 - - 25,000 25,000 MVTA 11 NEW Trunk Highway NB - MnPass Lane Preliminary Engineering 50,000 - - 50,000 50,000 MnDOT 12 NEW Transit Service Expansion Transit Service Expansion Capital and Operating - Set aside Various Locations 975,000 - - 975,000 975,000 Dakota County "New" County Road 32 (Cliff/117th St) from CSAH 32/CSAH 71 (Rich Valley Boulevard) to Trunk Highway 52 21 NEW Regional County Highway Project in Inver Grove Heights Design 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 7,000,000 Inver Grove Heights 2018 CIP Subtotal 4,800,000 787,500 - 4,012,500 Operating Program: (2) None 2018 Operating Subtotal - - - - 2018 Total 4,800,000 787,500 - 4,012,500 2019 Section Capital Improvement Program: 7 NEW Regional County Highway Project Reconstruction of CSAH 70 from east of I-35 to CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) in Lakeville ROW Acquisition 2,625,000 1,181,250 - 1,443,750 21,875,000 Dakota County 8 NEW Regional Trail Project Reimburse Parks CIP: MRRT Rosemount East Construction 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 2,000,000 Dakota County 13 NEW Transit Service Expansion MVTA Bus Shelter Pads and Installation Various Locations 50,000 - - 50,000 50,000 Dakota County 14 NEW Transit Service Expansion Transit Service Expansion Capital and Operating - Set aside Various Locations 950,000 - - 950,000 950,000 Dakota County "New" County Road 32 (Cliff/117th St) from CSAH 32/CSAH 71 (Rich Valley Boulevard) to Trunk Highway 52 21 NEW Regional County Highway Project in Inver Grove Heights ROW Acquisition 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000 7,000,000 Inver Grove Heights 2019 CIP Subtotal 6,625,000 1,181,250 - 5,443,750 Operating Program: (2) None 2019 Operating Subtotal - - - - 2019 Total 6,625,000 1,181,250 - 5,443,750 2020 Section Capital Improvement Program: 7 NEW Regional County Highway Project Reconstruction of CSAH 70 from east of I-35 to CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) in Lakeville Construction 17,500,000 7,875,000 7,000,000 2,625,000 21,875,000 Dakota County 15 NEW Transit Service Expansion MVTA Bus Shelter Pads and Installation Various Locations 50,000 - - 50,000 50,000 Dakota County 16 NEW Transit Service Expansion Transit Service Expansion Capital and Operating - Set aside Various Locations 950,000 - - 950,000 950,000 Dakota County "New" County Road 32 (Cliff/117th St) from CSAH 32/CSAH 71 (Rich Valley Boulevard) to Trunk Highway 52 21 NEW Regional County Highway Project in Inver Grove Heights Construction 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 7,000,000 Inver Grove Heights 2020 CIP Subtotal 22,500,000 7,875,000 7,000,000 7,625,000 Operating Program: (2) 22 NEW Transitway METRO Orange Line Phase I Transitway Operations 475,767 - - 475,767 1,472,732 Dakota County 2020 Operating Subtotal 475,767 - - 475,767 2020 Total 22,975,767 7,875,000 7,000,000 8,100,767 Note: (1) Cost share policy subject to change, actual project cost to be determined based on Adopted County Policy at time of Joint Powers Agreement. Note: (2) Transit and Transitway Operating Costs eligible for use of Sales Tax revenues per MN Statute §297A.993

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 160 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.8: 2018–2022 Transportation Sales Tax Capital Improvement Plan, continued

PAGE PROJECT PROJECT TYPE PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANNUAL CITY FEDERAL SALES TAX TOTAL PROJECT LEAD # NO. COST SHARE (1) FUNDING COST AGENCY

2021 Section Capital Improvement Program: 17 NEW Transit Service Expansion MVTA Bus Shelter Pads and Installation Various 50,000 - - 50,000 50,000 Dakota County 18 NEW Transit Service Expansion Transit Service Expansion for Capital and Operating - Set aside Various Locations 950,000 - - 950,000 950,000 Dakota County 2021 CIP Subtotal 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000

Operating Program: (2) 22 NEW Transitway METRO Orange Line Phase I Transitway Operations 490,753 - - 490,753 1,472,732 Dakota County 23 NEW Transitway METRO Orange Line Extension Transitway Operations 1,327,582 - - 1,327,582 2,696,983 Dakota County 24 NEW Transitway Reimburse Regional Railroad Authority Capital Costs Transitway Operations 696,840 - - 696,840 1,735,303 Dakota County 2021 Operating Subtotal 2,515,175 - - 2,515,175

2021 Total 3,515,175 - - 3,515,175

2022 Section Capital Improvement Program: 10 NEW Transit Service Expansion City of Burnsville - Pedestrian Crossing TH 13 @ Nicollet 825,000 - - 825,000 825,000 Burnsville 19 NEW Transit Service Expansion MVTA Bus Shelter Pads and Installation Various Locations 50,000 - - 50,000 50,000 Dakota County 20 NEW Transit Service Expansion Transit Service Expansion for Capital and Operating - Set aside Various Locations 950,000 - - 950,000 950,000 Dakota County 2022 CIP Subtotal 1,825,000 - - 1,825,000 Operating Program: (2) 22 NEW Transit METRO Orange Line Phase I Transitway Operations 506,212 - - 506,212 1,472,732 Dakota County 23 NEW Transit METRO Orange Line Extension Transitway Operations 1,369,401 - - 1,369,401 2,696,983 Dakota County 24 NEW Transit Reimburse Regional Railroad Authority Capital Costs Transitway Operations 1,038,463 - - 1,038,463 1,735,303 Dakota County 2022 Operating Subtotal 2,914,076 - - 2,914,076 2022 Total 4,739,076 - - 4,739,076

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 161 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

PARK SYSTEM AND LAND CONSERVATION CAPITAL PLANNING Park System The Parks CIP is organized by service categories of the Operations Management - Parks Department: • Planning — preparing contemporary plans that strategically guide system use, improvement, and management. The 2018-2022 will result in all parks having updated master plans and natural resources management plans. • Park and Greenway Acquisition — acquiring key inholdings to advance protection of natural resources and providing recreation opportunities. • Greenway Development — delivering the greenway vision by leveraging non-County funds and promoting partnerships with the cities and other agencies. The 2018–2022 CIP will advance 12 trail segments, three trailheads, and at least two grade separated crossings on regional greenways. • Park Development — constructing full service and year-round parks that provide the recreation that the public expects and desires. High priority park development projects occur after the updating and approval of the park master and natural resource management plans. • Natural Resources — advancing natural resource protection and restoration of the park and greenway system. In addition to managing 2,280 acres of land that have been restored or are undergoing restoration, the 2018–2022 CIP will restore an additional 956 acres. • General — projects for multiple or all park and greenway locations or yet-to-be determined sites.

Land Conservation The Land Conservation Program works with willing landowners and partners to permanently protect and manage shoreland along rivers, streams, and undeveloped lakeshore; high-quality natural areas; wetlands; and associated agricultural land throughout Dakota County. Priority efforts reflected in the 2018–2022 CIP include:

• Riparian Corridors/Lakeshore Acquisition (Vermillion and Cannon rivers and tributaries, Marcott Lakes, and Chub Lake) • High priority natural areas • Restoration and management of newly and previously acquired easements • Large tracts of cultivated, hydric soils and potential water retention basins • Properties adjacent to regional parks and within greenway corridors

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 162 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.9: 2018–2022 Parks and Greenways Capital Improvement Plan, 2018 Section Summary

PAGE PROJECT PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANNUAL FEDERAL STATE METRO METRO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION COUNTY PARK FUND COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT # NO. COST MET COUNCIL AOF GENERAL FUND LEGACY FUND SALES TAX PROGRAM AID COUNTY COSTS COST

2018 Section PLANNING: 15 0230 Planning: Park and Greenways Planning 470,000 - - - - - 470,000 - - - - 1,535,000 2018 Planning Subtotal: 470,000 - - - - - 470,000 - - - ACQUISITION: 16 P00040 Acquisition: Park and Greenway System Acquisition 4,533,333 - - - 3,400,000 1,133,333 - - - - - 22,666,665 2018 Aquisition Subtotal: 4,533,333 - - - 3,400,000 1,133,333 - - - - GENERAL: 17 P00117 Natural Resource, Greenway, and Park Improvement Grant Match Grant Match 550,000 - - - - - 550,000 - - - - 2,750,000 32 P00134 Systemwide Pavement Reconstruction Pavement Reconstruction 375,000 ------375,000 - - 1,071,150 2018 General Subtotal: 925,000 - - - - - 550,000 - 375,000 - -

GREENWAY DEVELOPMENT: 18 P00075 Greenway Development: Enhancements Greenway Enhancements 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 - - - - 1,221,020 19 P00078 Greenway Development: Collaborative Greenway Collaborative 400,000 ------300,000 100,000 - 2,400,000 20 P00093 Greenway Development: MRRT/BRRT to St. Paul MRRT/BRRT to St. Paul 500,000 ------500,000 - - 5,177,915 21 P00109 Greenway Development: MRRT Rosemount East MRRT East 3,000,000 - - - - 2,000,000 - 1,000,000 - - - 13,758,915 23 P00085 Greenway Development: Big Rivers Regional Trailhead BRRT Trailhead 1,574,000 - 787,000 - - - - - 787,000 - - 1,649,000 24 P00127 Greenway Development: Minnesota River Greenway - Fort Snelling MnRGW-Ft Snelling 600,000 ------500,000 100,000 - 6,600,000 P00107 Minnesota River Regional Greenway - Eagan Segment MnRGW - Eagan 670,000 ------670,000 - 2,871,483 2018 Greenway Development Subtotal: 6,944,000 - 787,000 - - 2,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 2,087,000 870,000 - NATURAL RESOURCES: 31 P00020 Natural Resource Management: Base Program Funding NR Base 863,805 - - - - - 558,734 - - 305,071 - 5,221,190 2018 Natural Resources Subtotal: 863,805 - - - - - 558,734 - - 305,071 -

PARK DEVELOPMENT: 25 P00074 Park Development: Enhancements Park Enhancements 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 - - - - 1,526,275 26 P00135 Lake Byllesby Master Plan Improvements LBRP MP Improvements 1,837,711 - - - - 1,011,595 230,000 - 304,913 - 291,203 4,969,609 27 P00131 Whitetail Woods Master Plan Improvements WWRP MP Improvements 4,858,974 - - 2,992,960 - 1,489,606 105,000 - - 233,531 37,877 4,858,974 36 P00133 Whitetail Woods Regional Park Dike Improvements WWRP Dike 200,000 - - 200,000 ------800,000 2018 Park Development Subtotal: 7,146,685 - - 3,192,960 - 2,501,201 585,000 - 304,913 233,531 329,080 2018 Total 20,882,823 - 787,000 3,192,960 3,400,000 5,634,534 2,363,734 1,000,000 2,766,913 1,408,602 329,080 79,077,196

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 163 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.10: 2018–2022 Parks and Greenways Capital Improvement Plan, 2019 Section Summary

PAGE PROJECT PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANNUAL FEDERAL STATE METRO METRO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION COUNTY PARK FUND COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT # NO. COST MET COUNCIL AOF GENERAL FUND LEGACY FUND SALES TAX PROGRAM AID COUNTY COSTS COST

2019 Section PLANNING: 15 0230 Planning: Park and Greenways Planning 300,000 - - - - - 300,000 - - - - 1,535,000 2019 Planning Subtotal: 300,000 - - - - - 300,000 - - - - ACQUISITION: 16 P00040 Acquisition: Park and Greenway System Acquisition 4,533,333 - - - 3,400,000 1,133,333 - - - - - 22,666,665 2019 Aquisition Subtotal: 4,533,333 - - - 3,400,000 1,133,333 - - - - - GENERAL: 17 P00117 Natural Resource, Greenway, and Park Improvement Grant Match Grant Match 550,000 - - - - - 550,000 - - - - 2,750,000 32 P00134 Systemwide Pavement Reconstruction Pavement Reconstruction 150,000 ------150,000 - - 1,071,150 2019 General Subtotal: 700,000 - - - - - 550,000 - 150,000 - -

GREENWAY DEVELOPMENT: 18 P00075 Greenway Development: Enhancements Greenway Enhancements 220,000 - - - - - 220,000 - - - - 1,221,020 19 P00078 Greenway Development: Collaborative Greenway Collaborative 500,000 ------500,000 - - 2,400,000 21 P00109 Greenway Development: MRRT Rosemount East MRRT East 3,000,000 - - - - 2,000,000 - 1,000,000 - - - 13,758,915 22 NEW Greenway Development: Lake Marion Greenway - Burnsville Lake Marion Greenway (Burnsville) 400,000 ------240,000 - 160,000 400,000 34 NEW Pine Bend Bluff Historical Marker Restoration Pine Bend Historical Marker 275,000 - 50,000 - - - - - 225,000 - - 275,000 2019 Greenway Development Subtotal: 4,395,000 - 50,000 - - 2,000,000 220,000 1,000,000 965,000 - 160,000 NATURAL RESOURCES: 31 P00020 Natural Resource Management: Base Program Funding NR Base 1,023,887 - - - - - 759,820 - - 264,067 - 5,221,190 2019 Natural Resources Subtotal: 1,023,887 - - - - - 759,820 - - 264,067 -

PARK DEVELOPMENT: 25 P00074 Park Development: Enhancements Park Enhancements 275,000 - - - - - 275,000 - - - - 1,526,275 26 P00135 Lake Byllesby Master Plan Improvements LBRP MP Improvements 3,131,898 - - 1,751,870 - - 255,000 - 952,656 - 172,372 4,969,609 2019 Park Development Subtotal: 3,406,898 - - 1,751,870 - - 530,000 - 952,656 - 172,372

2019 Total 14,359,118 - 50,000 1,751,870 3,400,000 3,133,333 2,359,820 1,000,000 2,067,656 264,067 332,372 57,794,824

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 164 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.11: 2018–2022 Parks and Greenways Capital Improvement Plan, 2020 Section Summary

PAGE PROJECT PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANNUAL FEDERAL STATE METRO METRO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION COUNTY PARK FUND COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT # NO. COST MET COUNCIL AOF GENERAL FUND LEGACY FUND SALES TAX PROGRAM AID COUNTY COSTS COST

2020 Section PLANNING: 15 0230 Planning: Park and Greenways Planning 290,000 - - - - - 290,000 - - - - 1,535,000 2020 Planning Subtotal: 290,000 - - - - - 290,000 - - - - ACQUISITION: 16 P00040 Acquisition: Park and Greenway System Acquisition 4,533,333 - - - 3,400,000 1,133,333 - - - - - 22,666,665 2020 Aquisition Subtotal: 4,533,333 - - - 3,400,000 1,133,333 - - - - - GENERAL: 17 P00117 Natural Resource, Greenway, and Park Improvement Grant Match Grant Match 550,000 - - - - - 550,000 - - - - 2,750,000 32 P00134 Systemwide Pavement Reconstruction Pavement Reconstruction 165,000 ------165,000 - - 1,071,150 2020 General Subtotal: 715,000 - - - - - 550,000 - 165,000 - - GREENWAY DEVELOPMENT: 18 P00075 Greenway Development: Enhancements Greenway Enhancements 242,000 - - - - - 242,000 - - - - 1,221,020 19 P00078 Greenway Development: Collaborative Greenway Collaborative 500,000 ------500,000 - - 2,400,000 2020 Greenway Development Subtotal: 742,000 - - - - - 242,000 - 500,000 - - NATURAL RESOURCES: 31 P00020 Natural Resource Management: Base Program Funding NR Base 1,073,566 - - - - - 1,025,772 - 47,794 - - 5,221,190 2020 Natural Resources Subtotal: 1,073,566 - - - - - 1,025,772 - 47,794 - -

PARK DEVELOPMENT: 25 P00074 Park Development: Enhancements Park Enhancements 302,500 - - - - - 248,000 - - - 54,500 1,526,275 28 NEW Thompson Park Master Plan Improvements TCP MP Improvements 1,102,001 ------820,806 - 281,195 1,725,337 29 NEW Spring Lake Park Master Plan Improvements SLPR MP Improvements 1,225,647 - - 952,620 - - - - 273,027 - - 3,446,197 2020 Park Development Subtotal: 2,630,148 - - 952,620 - - 248,000 - 1,093,833 - 335,695 2020 Total 9,984,047 - - 952,620 3,400,000 1,133,333 2,355,772 - 1,806,627 - 335,695

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 165 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.12: 2018–2022 Parks and Greenways Capital Improvement Plan, 2021 Section Summary

PAGE PROJECT PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANNUAL FEDERAL STATE METRO METRO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION COUNTY PARK FUND COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT # NO. COST MET COUNCIL AOF GENERAL FUND LEGACY FUND SALES TAX PROGRAM AID COUNTY COSTS COST

2021 Section PLANNING: 15 0230 Planning: Park and Greenways Planning 275,000 - - - - - 275,000 - - - - 1,535,000 2021 Planning Subtotal: 275,000 - - - - - 275,000 - - - ACQUISITION: 16 P00040 Acquisition: Park and Greenway System Acquisition 4,533,333 - - - 3,400,000 1,133,333 - - - - - 22,666,665 2021 Aquisition Subtotal: 4,533,333 - - - 3,400,000 1,133,333 - - - - GENERAL: 17 P00117 Natural Resource, Greenway, and Park Improvement Grant Match Grant Match 550,000 - - - - - 550,000 - - - - 2,750,000 32 P00134 Systemwide Pavement Reconstruction Pavement Reconstruction 181,500 ------181,500 - - 1,071,150 2021 General Subtotal: 731,500 - - - - - 550,000 181,500 - - GREENWAY DEVELOPMENT: 18 P00075 Greenway Development: Enhancements Greenway Enhancements 266,200 - - - - - 206,725 - - - 59,475 1,221,020 19 P00078 Greenway Development: Collaborative Greenway Collaborative 500,000 ------500,000 - - 2,400,000 2021 Greenway Development Subtotal: 766,200 - - - - - 206,725 500,000 - 59,475 NATURAL RESOURCES: 31 P00020 Natural Resource Management: Base Program Funding NR Base 1,109,286 - - - - - 1,046,586 - 62,700 - - 5,221,190

2021 Natural Resources Subtotal: 1,109,286 - - - - - 1,046,586 62,700 - - PARK DEVELOPMENT: 25 P00074 Park Development: Enhancements Park Enhancements 332,750 - - - - - 273,275 - - - 59,475 1,526,275 28 NEW Thompson Park Master Plan Improvements TCP MP Improvements 623,336 ------403,234 - 220,102 1,725,337 29 NEW Spring Lake Park Master Plan Improvements SLPR MP Improvements 2,220,550 - - 1,700,034 - - - - 520,516 - - 3,446,197 30 NEW Miesville Ravine Park Master Plan Improvements MRPR MP Improvement 1,068,730 - - 1,068,730 ------1,731,747 2021 Park Development Subtotal: 4,245,366 - - 2,768,764 - - 273,275 923,750 - 279,577 2021 Total 11,660,685 - - 2,768,764 3,400,000 1,133,333 2,351,586 - 1,667,950 - 339,052

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 166 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.13: 2018–2022 Parks and Greenways Capital Improvement Plan, 2022 Section Summary

PAGE PROJECT PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANNUAL FEDERAL STATE METRO METRO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION COUNTY PARK FUND COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT # NO. COST MET COUNCIL AOF GENERAL FUND LEGACY FUND SALES TAX PROGRAM AID COUNTY COSTS COST

2022 Section PLANNING: 15 0230 Planning: Park and Greenways Planning 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 - - - - 1,535,000 2022 Planning Subtotal: 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 - - - - ACQUISITION: 16 P00040 Acquisition: Park and Greenway System Acquisition 4,533,333 - - - 3,400,000 1,133,333 - - - - - 22,666,665 2022 Aquisition Subtotal: 4,533,333 - - - 3,400,000 1,133,333 - - - - - GENERAL: 35 NEW Park and Greenway Master Plan Improvements General MP Improvements 2,388,698 - - 2,118,747 - - - - 49,354 - 220,597 2,388,698 17 P00117 Natural Resource, Greenway, and Park Improvement Grant Match Grant Match 550,000 - - - - - 550,000 - - - - 2,750,000 32 P00134 Systemwide Pavement Reconstruction Pavement Reconstruction 199,650 ------199,650 - - 1,071,150 2022 General Subtotal: 3,138,348 - - 2,118,747 - - 550,000 - 249,004 - 220,597 GREENWAY DEVELOPMENT: 18 P00075 Greenway Development: Enhancements Greenway Enhancements 292,820 - - - - - 238,398 - - - 54,422 1,221,020 24 P00127 Greenway Development: Minnesota River Greenway - Fort Snelling MnRGW-Ft Snelling 6,000,000 - 3,000,000 - - - - - 1,914,519 1,085,481 - 6,600,000 33 NEW Greenway Development: River to River Greenway - Dodd Underpass River to River - Dodd Underpass 1,250,000 1,000,000 ------250,000 - 1,250,000 19 P00078 Greenway Development: Collaborative Greenway Collaborative 500,000 ------500,000 - - 2,400,000 2022 Greenway Development Subtotal: 8,042,820 1,000,000 3,000,000 - - - 238,398 - 2,414,519 1,335,481 54,422 NATURAL RESOURCES: 31 P00020 Natural Resource Management: Base Program Funding NR Base 1,150,646 - - - - - 1,047,256 - 103,390 - - 5,221,190 2022 Natural Resources Subtotal: 1,150,646 - - - - - 1,047,256 - 103,390 - -

PARK DEVELOPMENT: 30 NEW Miesville Ravine Park Master Plan Improvements MRPR MP Improvement 663,017 - - 650,017 ------13,000 1,731,747 25 P00074 Park Development: Enhancements Park Enhancements 366,025 - - - - - 311,602 - - - 54,423 1,526,275 2022 Park Development Subtotal: 1,029,042 - - 650,017 - - 311,602 - - - 67,423 2022 Total 18,094,189 1,000,000 3,000,000 2,768,764 3,400,000 1,133,333 2,347,256 - 2,766,913 1,335,481 342,442

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 167 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 Table 6.14: 2018–2022 Land Conservation Capital Improvement Plan

PAGE PROJECT PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANNUAL STATE ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL PROJECT # NO. COST LEGACY FUND COST

2018 Section

NEW Wetland Restoration and Water Retention Basins on Agricultural Lands Wetland Restoration/Water Retention 100,000 - 100,000 2,450,000 NEW Habitat Protection and Restoration Habitat Protection/Restoration 3,050,666 2,288,000 762,666 11,335,000 2018 Total 3,150,666 2,288,000 862,666 13,785,000

2019 Section NEW Wetland Restoration and Water Retention Basins on Agricultural Lands Wetland Restoration/Water Retention 2,350,000 1,960,000 390,000 2,450,000 NEW Habitat Protection and Restoration Habitat Protection/Restoration 5,284,334 3,962,000 1,322,334 11,335,000 2019 Total 7,634,334 5,922,000 1,712,334 13,785,000

2020 Section 2020 Total - - - -

2021 Section NEW Habitat Protection and Restoration Habitat Protection/Restoration 3,000,000 2,250,000 750,000 11,335,000 2021 Total 3,000,000 2,250,000 750,000 11,335,000

2022 Section 2022 Total - - - -

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 168 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Official Controls Dakota County manages and operates County-owned land, including County parks and open spaces, County roads and trails, and County facilities. The County has authority over a range of land- and land use-related issues through its ordinances, which are updated as needed. Dakota County has limited land use authority in rural shoreland and floodplain areas, in partnership with townships within the County.

The following Dakota County ordinances relate to topics included in DC2040 and land use. Additional summary information for ordinances can be found in the related chapters of this plan, under “Official Controls and Programs.”

County Ordinance 50 (2016) — Shoreland and Floodplain Management County Ordinance 108 (2005) — Contiguous Plats County Ordinance 110 (2013) — Solid Waste Management County Ordinance 111 (2017) — Hazardous Waste Regulation County Ordinance 113 (2016) — Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (Septic Systems) County Ordinance 114 (1998) — Well and Water Supply Management County Ordinance 119 (1997) — Sequencing Ordinance for Dakota County County Ordinance 126 (2001) — Right-of-Way County Ordinance 130 (2008) — Official Mapping County Ordinance 132 (2017) — Dakota County Storm Sewer System

Comprehensive Plan Updates The Dakota County Comprehensive Plan is updated every 10 years. The next update will occur in 2027– 2028, with a plan horizon of 2050. Interim amendments are made to the Comprehensive Plan as necessary and are subject to requirements for review and approval by the County Board and the Metropolitan Council. DC 2040 Content Notes Dakota County’s last Comprehensive Plan update, DC2030, was completed in 2008. The scope of the document included a range of topics that were not strictly required in the County’s Comprehensive Plan but supported a vision for the desired future of the County. Several of these topic areas have been identified by the Metropolitan Council in their THRIVE MSP 2040 comprehensive plan guidance as optional chapters (Resilience and Economic Vitality) that communities could consider including in their plans. The following crosswalk highlights the differences between DC2030 and DC2040, as well as sources of additional information. DC2030-DC2040 CROSSWALK TABLE The first column of the following table identifies DC2030 major topic sections. The second column denotes which DC2030 sections that were updated and retained in DC2040 and which topics are addressed in other plans and programs. The third column identifies additional information sources, including full plan documents that have been abridged into DC2040 and other plans and programs that address topics not included in DC2040.

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 169 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table 6.15: DC2030-DC2040 Crosswalk DC2030 Chapters and Topics DC2040 Location Notes / Location for Information Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Natural Systems Chapter 5: Land Use-Natural Resources Chapter reorganized • Sustainability Retained as a systems guiding principle • Education Embedded in selected strategies • Climate Change Dakota County Energy Plan • Energy County standards, programs, and practices for Capital Facilities, Fleet • Solid Waste Management Chapter 5: Land Use-Natural Resources • Building Green Capital Facilities Building Standards • Healthy Environment County Public Health programs • Contaminated Sites Chapter 5: Land Use-Natural Resources • Land Resources Chapter 5: Land Use-Natural Resources • Water Resources Chapter 5: Land Use-Natural Resources • Other Natural Resources Chapter 5: Land Use-Natural Resources • Environment Summary Chapter 5: Land Use-Natural Resources Presented with individual topics • Mississippi River Critical Chapter 5: Land Use-Natural Resources Area • Park System Plan Chapter 4: Parks Chapter Chapter only, not the full Plan Chapter 3: Transportation Plan Chapter 3: Transportation Chapter Chapter only, not the full Plan Chapter 4: Land Use/Growth Chapter 5: Land Use-Natural Resources Chapter reorganized • Housing CDA Consolidated Plan • Economic Development CDA Economic Development Guiding Principles, 2006 • Historic Preservation Chapter 4: Parks Chapter, for resources Dakota County Historical Society in County Parks, on greenways Strategic Plan • Wastewater Treatment Chapter 5: Land Use-Natural Resources • County Facilities County standards, programs, and practices for Capital Facilities Chapter 5: Growing and Nurturing People • Demographics Chapter 2: Demographics • Active Living Reflected in Land Use, Parks, and Dakota County Public Health, Transportation chapters Statewide Health Improvement Partnership (SHIP), Community Health Improvement Plan • Aging Initiative Reflected in Land Use, Parks, and Dakota County Communities for a Transportation chapters Lifetime • Public Engagement Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 170 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Other Related County Plans and Programs The following plans and programs are closely related to DC2040:

Active Living The Dakota County Active Living Program seeks to improve the health of Dakota County residents by providing desirable walking and bicycling opportunities, as well as access to healthy food. The sidewalks and trails along County highways, transitways, and greenways as planned in DC2040 are important facilities for daily exercise and can help reduce chronic disease.

All Hazard Mitigation Plan As part of a Federal requirement, Dakota County has developed an All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the plan is to develop resiliency by helping protect residents against harm and property damage from flooding and other hazards. The plan: • Identifies the types of hazards that pose a risk of injury, death, or property damage • Ranks the hazards by severity and likelihood of occurrence • Identifies strategies to minimize future risk

The Dakota County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan covers the rural townships as well as 14 urban and six rural cities of Dakota County. Link to: All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Affordable Housing — Dakota County Community Development Authority (CDA) The Dakota County CDA has adopted a CDA consolidated plan that provides direction for affordable housing. The CDA manages multiple public housing sites for workforce housing and for senior housing. Link to: CDA Consolidated Plan

Communities for a Lifetime The Dakota County Communities for a Lifetime initiative brings together residents, local businesses, community organizations, cities, and County staff to create networks of vital, accessible communities. Similar to the Active Living program, the sidewalks and trails along County highways, transitways, and greenways as planned in DC2040 are important facilities to allow people to be mobile and independent. Link to: Communities for a Lifetime

Economic Development — Dakota County Community Development Authority (CDA) The Dakota County CDA has adopted an economic development strategy for Dakota County centered on the following principles: • Invest in Transportation and Transit Networks • Coordinate Strategic Infrastructure and Land Development • Link Workforce Development and Economic Development • Create Prospect Response Capacity • Provide Quality Workforce Housing • Strengthen Development-Related Research and Policy Capacity

Link to: CDA Economic Development Strategy

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 171 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Dakota County Building standards incorporate energy efficiency and long-term cost savings into building designs. Dakota County fleet policies have resulted in “right sized” equipment purchases, increased fuel efficiency, and reductions in carbon emissions.

Farmland and Natural Area Plan The Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Plan is a strategic plan to protect the County’s highest priority farmland and natural resources. Link to: Farmland and Natural Area Plan

Historic Preservation — Dakota County Historical Society The Dakota County Historical Society is partially funded by Dakota County and has prepared a Strategic Plan. The Dakota County Historical Society actively manages several historic properties in Dakota County. Dakota County works closely with the Dakota County Historical Society when preparing park and trail master plans to interpret the natural and cultural history of the County. Link to: Historical Society Web Page

Parks System Plan and Other Park Plans The Dakota County Park System Plan provides strategic and policy direction for the Dakota County Parks System. The County has also adopted a Visitor Services Plan, and a County-wide Natural Resources System Plan that provide direction for these park program areas.

Link to: Park System Plan Link to: Park Visitor Services Plan Link to: Countywide Natural Resources Management System Plan

Solid Waste Master Plan The Solid Waste Master Plan is a plan to reduce waste, manage waste properly, and protect natural resources. Link to: Solid Waste Master Plan

Transportation Plan The County’s Transportation Plan addresses all modes of transportation in Dakota County. The plan includes policies for expanding, maintaining, and funding the County highway system and multi-modal facilities, including the policies for working cooperatively with cities and other transportation agencies. Link to: Dakota County Transportation Plan

Chapter 6: Implementation, Page 172 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

APPENDIX A: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT DC2040 The formal six-month public review period on the draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040, was held from April 1 to October 1, 2018, and the draft plan was placed online, provided at County libraries, and publicized through the web and other media. Adjacent and Affected Jurisdictions Notice of plan availability, a link to the draft plan, and an invitation to comment was sent to adjacent and potentially affected jurisdictions identified by the Metropolitan Council, listed in Table A.1

Table A.1: Adjacent and Potentially Affected Communities Notified of DC2040 Formal Review County Communities Adjacent Communities Independent School Districts Apple Valley Bloomington 191; Burnsville-Eagan-Savage Burnsville Cottage Grove 192; Farmington Castle Rock Twp. Credit River Twp. 194; Lakeville Coates Denmark Twp. 195; Randolph Douglas Twp. Grey Cloud Island Twp. 196; Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan Eagan New Market Twp. 197; West St. Paul-Mendota Hts.-Eagan Empire Twp. Newport 199; Inver Grove Heights Eureka Twp. Savage 200; Hastings Farmington St. Paul 252; Cannon Falls Greenvale Twp. St. Paul Park 6; South St. Paul Hampton Hennepin County 659; Northfield Hampton Twp. Ramsey County Hastings Scott County Watershed Management Orgs. Inver Grove Heights Washington County Black Dog WMO Lakeville Capitol Region WD Lilydale Out-of-Region Communities Eagan-Inver Grove Heights WMO Marshan Twp. Cannon Falls Lower Minnesota River WD Mendota Cannon Falls Twp. Lower Mississippi River WMO Mendota Heights Goodhue County North Cannon River WMO Miesville Northfield Ramsey Washington Metro WD New Trier Northfield Twp. Scott County WMO Nininger Twp. Rice County South Washington Watershed District Randolph Stanton Twp. Vermillion River Watershed JPO Randolph Twp. Webster Twp. Ravenna Twp. Welch Twp. Regional Park Agencies Rosemount St. Paul Parks Department Rural Collaborative Agencies Washington County Parks Sciota Twp. National Park Service, MNRRA Three Rivers Parks South St. Paul MN DNR, MRCCA and Reg. 3 Bloomington Parks Sunfish Lake MN DOT Scott County Parks Vermillion MN Valley Transit Auth. Ramsey County Parks Vermillion Twp. Waterford Twp. West St. Paul

Appendix A, Page 173 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2 includes the comments received and proposed responses.

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response Transportation: 1. Page 26 – Proposed Roadway Expansion Projects: • CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) to be expanded to more than 6 lanes. th • CSAH 42 (150 Street W.) to be expanded to more than 6 Transportation: lanes. 1. The County will re- • CSAH 42 (150th Street W.) to be expanded to 6 lanes. evaluate expansion needs • CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) to be expanded to 6 lanes. after the new travel demand model is done as • CSAH 46 (160th Street W.) to be expanded to 6 lanes. part of the full Plan The City of Apple Valley wishes to continue to collaborate with Dakota update, and will work County to ensure all County road expansion project use context- with the City sensitive planning processes and road designs. 2. Comment noted. Scoring 2. Page 38 – Gaps in Existing Pedestrian System: None of the gaps criteria were applied identified in the pedestrian system map in Apple Valley are consistently County-wide designated as “High Priority” missing segments, but the City’s Bike with different results than Walk Apple Valley plan ranked the south CSAH 42 segment west of at a city level. Dakota CSAH 31 as a high priority gap. The gaps identified along CSAH 38 County will work cities to force cyclists and pedestrians to cross the street to stay on an off- address gaps along street pathway. This is a significant barrier for those who wish to County highways. travel east-west in Apple Valley. 3. Comment noted Apple Valley 3. Page 51 – Contributing Planning Activities: Does not include the 4. a) Noted. The County Metropolitan Council’s Principal Arterial Intersection Conversion supports City efforts to Study. The City of Apple Valley wishes to continue to participate in all construct a trail along the planning activities related to grade separated intersections of any north side of 140th St east County roadways in Apple Valley. of Cedar and agrees that 4. The City notes several projects of interest in the Dakota County CIP it is an important element that could impact the City. to improving pedestrian/bike facilities a) The City would ask Dakota County to consider construction of a in the area. However, the pedestrian path along the south side of the 140th Street between County does not believe it Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) and Galaxie Ave and directing pedestrians negates the need to and cyclists to cross CSAH 23 on the south side of the provide an overpass of intersection. This may remove a need for a pedestrian overpass Cedar on the north side of on the north side of the intersection. The City’s priority is for a the 140th St intersection. skyway at 147th Street transit station. A skyway at 140th Street should be considered when the need for additional park and ride b) Comment noted locations has been resolved. c) Comment noted b) The City notes that the County intends to study the Palomino station in 2021 and 2022. c) The City notes that the County intends to update the Red Line IUP in 2022. Parks-Trails: Parks-Trails: 1. The City of Bloomington advised us that they are coordinating with 1. Comment noted Burnsville MN DOT to provide a trail connection from the future new I-35W

bridge to planned trails in Bloomington, including the Minnesota

Appendix A, Page 174 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response Valley State Trail (DNR project). Bloomington is also working to 2. Comment noted complete a trail connection along Old Cedar Avenue from East Old 3. Comment noted Shakopee Road to the bridge. A trailhead at the end of Old Cedar is also being rebuilt with USFWS. The first phase, tentatively to be constructed in 2019-2020, is planned to extend between Lyndale / I-

35W and Old Cedar Bridge. Land Use-Natural Resources: 2. The City of Burnsville is interested in working with Dakota, Hennepin, 1. Comments noted. County and Scott counties along with the cities of Savage, Eagan, and policy SW.8 on page 107 Bloomington and other partners to ultimately connect the Black Dog supports long-term and Trail in Burnsville to the Big Rivers Regional Trail, and trails that cross post-closure care of the Minnesota River north into Bloomington. landfills. Dakota County 3. The City of Burnsville is interested in working with Dakota County and will work with MPCA and Eagan to provide trail connections to the Black Dog Trail. We would the City to identify the also like to coordinate with Dakota County and Scott County, including best solution for the City of Savage, to provide a future trail connection to Scott County Freeway landfill. East Trail and the Lake Marion Greenway Trail. Land Use-Natural Resources: 1. Please include a statement of support for proper closure or remediation of landfills in the Plan. If Freeway Landfill contaminates the groundwater, this region will have a significant challenge. The City would like to obtain support from Dakota County for moving Freeway Landfill trash to Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Inc. landfill. Transportation: 1. Update Map 3.1, County Transportation System, to include the Amana Transportation: Inver Grove Trail segment of CSAH 28. 1. Map has been updated Heights 2. Update Map 3.22, Ten-Ton Highways, to include CSAH 26 from 55/149 2. Map has been updated to the New 63? Transportation: Transportation: 1. Existing and future land 1. In our ongoing discussion with the Minnesota Vikings, it is clear that uses identified in City there will be increased demands on our road/transportation plans will be reflected in infrastructure. In our review of the plan, it is unclear if/how the the 2040 traffic modeling County plans to address this increased demand. to be completed the in next full Transportation ISD 197: Parks-Trails: Plan update. Capacity West St. 1. We have more specific comments regarding Thompson Park Activity improvement needs Paul- Center (TPAC) given out ongoing partnership with the County. There identified in the plan Mendota is a need to increased upper lot parking spaces for renters and older update will based on Heights- adults. On a monthly basis, the lodge parking lot is full. At times, the these 2040 traffic Eagan lower lot is full as well. However, event when there are spaces in the projections. lower lot, many of our older adults cannot walk the distance from the Parks-Trails: lower to the upper lot at TPAC. The hill in the upper lot, that divides 1. Comments noted and will the parking are from the building, creates safety issues because there be addressed in the is no sight line to the parking lot. By removing the hill and creating current master plan increased parking, it would also allow for increased accessible parking update for Thompson for older adults. County Park

Appendix A, Page 175 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response Transportation: Transportation: 1. The plan has been revised 1. Lakeville staff understands that County staff is scheduled to complete to clarify that the full a full Transportation Plan update in 2019 to reflect city land use Transportation Plan changes and development in respective 2018 Comprehensive Plans, update is anticipated for including updating Traffic Analysis Zones and the County start in 2019 and transportation model. Lakeville staff would like to participate in the completion in 2020. The process of considering proposed revisions to County cost-share City will be involved with policies. Please confirm timing of County update (2019 –p 11, 2 years the update. – p 43, 2020 – p 57) 2. Lakeville boundary 2. Figures 3.1-3.22 should be reviewed to reflect Lakeville’s current checked, comments on southern City limits and recent highway/trail public improvements project status noted (Dakota County project numbers 5-50, 9-07, 9-36, 9-42, 9-46, 9-48, 9- 52, 46-45, 50-03, 50-17, 50-19, 60-21, 70-21, 70-22). 3. Map has been revised 3. Figure 3.1 (p 17) Consider identifying figure as “existing” or adding 4. Comment noted. The “future” county highway segments in legend. County used its GIS data and the MN GEO Spatial 4. Figure 3.2 (p 18). Review for consistency with Lakeville Transportation Commons as source. Plan. Please consider updates 5. Figure 3.3 (p 21). Review to confirm CSAH 60 (west of I-35) requires ½ to those as needed. mile full access spacing – this is not reflected on current County Plat 5. Map 3.3 has been revised Needs Map or highlighted on Figure 3.3 or represented on Figure 3.6 to correct CSAH 60. CSAH (2040 ADT < 35,000). Is ½ mile full access spacing required for Cedar 23 south of 70 is on the Avenue (CSAH 23) south of CSAH 70 and CSAH 31 south of 179th Street County’s current plat (future CSAH 9)? Should ½ mile full access spacing be shown for CSAH needs map, as is CSAH 31 70 based on recommendations of Principal Arterial System Study? south of 179th. The access Should CSAH 23 and CSAH 70 be shown as future principal arterial spacing status of CSAH 70 based on recommendations of Principal Arterial System Study? Lakeville and CSAH 23 is ½ mile,

consistent with the Also, show existing segments as constructed (i.e., 179th Street). recently adopted 6. Figure 3.8 (p 26). Consider identifying “2 lanes” in legend as 2 lanes Principal Arterial Study. divided. Also, review plan for Consistency with Dakota County Plat Needs Map (i.e., Figure 3.8 doesn’t reflect proposed expansion of 6. Comments noted, will CSAH 9 east of CSAH 23, CSAH 50 east of CSAH 9, etc.). consider in next plan 7. Consider identifying transitways with METRO reference (i.e., Orange, update Red) in “Integration of Modes” (pp51-56). 7. Plan has been revised 8. “Transit Planning and Operations” (p 28). Consider referencing 8. Plan has been revised partnership with I35W Solutions Alliance. 9. Map updated for METRO 9. “Regional Transitways” (p 29). METRO Red Line should be Red Line, Orange Line is reviewed/revised to clarify that the existing transitway stops at the correct as-shown. Apple Valley Transit Station, and that the planned transitway extends to 215th Street. METRO Orange Line should be reviewed/revised to 10. Comment noted clarify that the planned transitway stops at Burnsville Parkway with 11. Comment noted Phase 1. Future station at Kenrick Avenue Park and Ride is being studied. 12. Data verified and updated 10. Figure 3.11 should be reviewed/revised to reflect Metro Transit – 13. Comment noted Express Service along I-35 to the Kenrick Avenue Park and Ride to I- 14. Comment noted, map

Appendix A, Page 176 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response 35/CSAH 60 Park and Pool to Scott County. used Metro Council data 11. “Transit Facilities” (p 31). Consider adding Kenrick Avenue Park and 15. Noted, plan revised Ride Facility. 16. This section identifies 12. Table 3.3 should be reviewed/revised to reflect correct addresses for major studies but may Kenrick Avenue and Lakeville Cedar Park and Ride facilities. not include all recommendations. The 13. Figure 3.13 (p 35). Consider adding future I-35 MnPASS/HOV lanes METRO Orange Line extension to CSAH 70. Extension Study is 14. Figure 3.19 (p 44). Should be revised to include Lakeville South High identifying key School. Consider adding Ritter Farm as a “high visit regional park” and components of a King Park, Aronson/Quigley-Sime Fields as “sports-complex.” potential extension into southern Burnsville and 15. “Aviation – Airlake Airport” (p 50). The Airlake Airport Long Term Lakeville, and will Comprehensive Plan was adopted in April 2018. Also Minnesota Rules evaluate and identify 8800.2800 lists eligible public water for seaplane operations. stations, routing, 16. Consider clarifying “Contributing Planning Activities” (pp 51-56). What runningway facilities, is the determination/intended purpose in selecting/identifying operational needs, and specific studies and reports? METRO Orange Line Extension Phase II costs. The Study is Study is not referenced; Principal Arterial Study is referenced with ongoing in conjunction generic explanation – recommendations are not identified; Kenrick with Metro Transit's Avenue Park and Ride Expansion Feasibility Report is not referenced. planning and construction of Phase 1 of the METRO Land Use-Natural Resources: Orange Line and city 1. Lakeville supports the County’s added objective (#7) to Water planning in the study Management Vision and Goals (p 97) “to identify, prioritize and area. Study completion is restore drained wetlands and other water retentions sites to improve expected in summer water quality, enhance wildlife habitat, and prevent/mitigate flood 2019. damage to public infrastructure and private property.” Is the County considering creating/expanding a County-wide wetland bank? Land Use-Natural Resources: 1. The County is working on 2. Lakeville supports the County’s added objective (#9) to Water wetland banking for Management Policies (p 97) “to collaborate with others in the control County projects and of aquatic invasive species.” partnering with the 3. Lakeville supports the County’s added objective (#6) to Water Supply VRWJPO on credits that Vision and Goal (p 102) “work with state, regional and local partners would be for sale to other on water supply issues.” entities. 2. Comment noted, Lakeville’s support is appreciated 3. Comment noted, Lakeville’s support is appreciated

Lower Land Use-Natural Resources: Land Use-Natural Resources: Minnesota The following recommendations for inclusion in the DC2040 are suggested 1. Comments noted. River to strengthen the County’s plan and better align the DC2040 and the Ordinance changes will be Watershed District plan: considered upon approval District 1. In Ordinance 132, Dakota County Storm Sewer System, include a on the Comprehensive

Appendix A, Page 177 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response standard that restricts infiltration practices within 50 feet of a septic Plan tank or drain field. 2. In Section 18 of Ordinance 50, require the lowest level of proposed structures to be a minimum of two feet above the 100-year flood elevation. Transportation: 1. Figure 3.20, page 47: The noise contours shown for MSP appear to be outdated (2005 or 2007 forecast contours). We have actual 2017 noise contours that we’ve provided to several cities for use in their Comprehensive Plans. Please let me know if you would like GIS shapefiles of the 2017 noise contour to use in updating this graphic. 2. Aviation, page 50: Suggest the following updates to this section (changes highlighted in yellow). Airlake Airport — The Airlake Airport is under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and is location in Lakeville and Eureka Township, west of CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue) and south of CSAH 70 (215th Street). It is classified as a reliever airport with a 4,099-foot runway. It had 37,000 annual operations (landings and takeoffs) in 2015. Approximately 133 aircraft are based at the airport which serves private, recreational, and some Transportation: business aviation purposes. MAC adopted a 2035 comprehensive plan 1. Map has been updated for the airport in 2018 that recommends extending the runway to 2. Comment noted. This will 4,850 feet, in an alignment that does not necessitate moving Cedar require further discussion Avenue. However, the 2035 plan identifies a need to relocate the between the County and intersection of 225th Street and Cedar Avenue further to the south. MAC to ensure traffic Metro 3. Aviation, page 51: Suggest the following updates to this section safety is not Airports (changes highlighted in yellow) St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman compromised. Comm. Field) — The St. Paul Downtown Airport is under the jurisdiction of 3. Plan has been updated the MAC and is located south of the Mississippi River in St. Paul and with suggested language just north of South St. Paul. It is classified as a primary reliever for Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport (MSP). It is expected to 4. Plan has been updated experience an increase in operations as MSP becomes congested. with suggested language Expansion of the St. Paul Downtown Airport has recently occurred, but expansion is limited by topographical and site constraints. 4. Contributing Planning Activities, Page 51-56: Suggest adding the Airlake 2035 LTCP to this list; a brief description is below: The MAC completed a 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan for Airlake Airport in 2018. The plan envisions: • Displacing the Runway 12 threshold to provide airspace clearance over railroad tracks • Extending Runway 12-30 with declared distances to maximize overall airfield utility for existing users • Reconfiguring the taxiway and expanding the apron area Any required environmental review for the planned improvements at Airlake Airport will be completed prior to construction. Minnesota Land Use-Natural Resources: Land Use-Natural Resources: DNR, Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan preliminarily approved with 1. Plan has been revised to

Appendix A, Page 178 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response Mississippi these changes: include the desired River 1. Please acknowledge provisions in 6106.0130, Subp 4. ROW maintenance standards Corridor maintenance under MR22. Critical Area 2. Clarify that County does not operate barge fleeting. 2. Plan has been revised 3. Clarify that County does not operate recreational marinas 3. Plan has been revised. Note that the 2003 Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan proposed future houseboat camping at the shore and a boating day use area below Schaar’s bluff.

Transportation: Transportation: 1. Wildlife. Include natural resource planning considerations in the 1. Comments noted and will transportation chapter, such as language from the Land Use and be considered in the Natural Resources chapter: “LR 5. Incorporate ecosystem protection update of the County’s and restoration into County facility, park, greenway, and highway full Transportation Plan in design and maintenance.” DNR’s Best Practices for protection of 2019. species and Roadways and Turtles Flyer for self-mitigating measures to incorporate into design and construction plans. Examples of mores specific measures include: • Preventing entrapment and death of small animals especially reptiles and amphibians, by specifying biodegradable erosion control netting (‘bio-netting’ or ‘natural netting’ types (category 3N or 4N)), and specifically not allow plastic mesh netting. (p. 25) • Providing wider culverts or other passageways under paths, driveways and roads while still considering impacts to the floodplain. • Including a passage bench under bridge water crossings. (p. 17) because typical bridge riprap can be a barrier to animal movement Minnesota along streambanks. DNR, • Curb and storm water inlet designs that don’t inadvertently direct Parks and Trails: Region 3 small mammals and reptiles into the storm sewer. (p. 24). Installing 1. Comments noted. Plan “surmountable curbs” (Type D or S curbs) allows animals (e.g., turtles) revised to include more to climb over and exit roadways. Traditional curbs/gutters tend to information on other trap animals on the roadway. Another option is to install/create curb public recreation areas. breaks every, say, 100 feet (especially important near wetlands). • Using Smart salting practices to reduce impacts to downstream mussel beds, as well as other species. • Fencing could be installed near wetlands to help keep turtles off the road (fences that have a j-hook at each end are more effective than those that don’t). • Consulting Rare and Endangered species databases prior to project planning.

Parks and Trails: Land Use-Natural Resources:

1. Somewhere in the document, whether in the parks chapter, or 1. Comment noted and elsewhere, there could be a section describing outdoor recreational addressed under water components not provided by, but available in the County. For resources section

Appendix A, Page 179 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response instance, there are considerable hunting and fishing opportunities 2. Comment noted within Wildlife Management areas. There are also State-supported 3. Plan has been revised grant-in-aid trails that connect your community to an extensive network of trails throughout the state. To raise awareness of this 4. Plan has been revised recreational activity network, we suggest including snowmobile trails 5. Comment noted. DNR on at least one inventory in the document. The snowmobile GIA staff from the MRCCA Program webpage below also has more information on the program program provided a and funding: courtesy review of the https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/recreation/gia_snowmobile.htm draft DC2040. l 6. Comments noted Land Use-Natural Resources: 1. Key Issues. We suggest adding another key issue to the list on page a. Plan revised 89- groundwater quality and quantity are also at risk. Nitrates b. Plan revised threaten drinking water supplies and natural resources compete for

groundwater with agricultural irrigation and municipal water supplies. c. Plan revised 2. Water. Goal 5.4 (p. 90) includes water in the list of natural resources d. Plan revised to protect, but there are not many specific policies or action related

to water. Perhaps include a reference to relevant policies from the e. Plan revised county’s different water plans? f. Plan revised 3. Calcareous Fens. Consider adding the following information underlined (source, DNR wetland web pages) to the Calcareous Fens description: Calcareous fens, one of the rarest natural communities in the United States, are wetlands fed by groundwater with large quantities of dissolved calcium carbonate (CaCO3, or lime). Calcareous fens often have rare plant species adapted to the unique environment and receive protected protection under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Indicator plant species, soil characteristics, and groundwater relationships are used in fen identification. Calcareous fens are a special resource because their unique characteristics are difficult to restore if degraded and essentially impossible to re-create. Calcareous fens are highly susceptible to disturbance. Reduction in the normal supply of groundwater results in oxidation of the surface peat, releasing nutrients and fostering the growth of shrubs and tall, coarse vegetation that displaces the fen plants. Nitrogen-rich surface water runoff into fens promotes the invasion of aggressive exotic plants, especially reed canary grass, that also outcompete the fen plants. Flooding drowns the fen plants. The soft, saturated character of the peat makes almost any level of activity within them, by humans or domestic livestock, highly disruptive. DNR identifies the following calcareous fen areas in Dakota County, all located within the Minnesota River valley. 4. Trout Streams. We appreciate the discussion of trout streams. Having a trout stream so close to a metropolitan area is a Dakota County gem. Consider adding the following concepts into your document: Within the Vermillion River Watershed exists a highly valued public trout fishery and supports a self-sustaining wild brown trout population. Trout streams are particularly reliant on groundwater flow because the temperature of this source water is cool in the summer (and relatively high in winter). Potential issues facing the present

Appendix A, Page 180 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response nature of trout within the watershed are changes in groundwater transport rates or supply to the river. Shifts that increase impervious surface runoff and/or groundwater withdrawals will reduce the quantity and quality of trout habitat. The Vermillion River can benefit from projects that include wise groundwater use and development that encourages infiltration over runoff. 5. MRRCA. The previous comments do not assess whether the draft comprehensive plan complies with the MRCCA plan minimum requirements. If you are interested in further review of your MRCCA chapter for consistency with the MRCCA plan minimum requirements, please submit it to the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council will then forward the plan to the appropriate DNR staff. 6. Suggested Technical Edits a. In the Existing Parks, Natural Areas, and Greenways map (p. 63) for clarity, add DNR in front of Scientific and Natural Areas and Wildlife Management Areas. b. The following information on page. 94 needs to be updated changed as shown, “Trout Brook and Pine Creek feed into the Cannon River in Goodhue County and are managed by DNR’s Central Region (3)5 in Wabasha County. Both streams were stocked with trout at one time and now support naturally reproducing trout populations.” c. Include DNR in the list of state and local agencies with water- related responsibilities, p. 102. d. In Minnesota River section, page 94, consider adding “bluffs” with banks. e. In the Trout stream discussion of Kennaley’s Creek, page 94, we recommend saying these creeks are primarily within the NVNWR, because other landowner include Northern States Power, Met Council and MN DNR. f. In the Collaboration bullet point on page 102, DNR could be added to the list. Transportation: Transportation: 1. Due to strong freight activity in Dakota County, it should consider 1. & 2. The County additional emphasis in the following areas: Play a leading role in: acknowledges the • Truck Routes – Coordination of truck routes/planning in importance of moving industrial and urban areas with restrictions and enforcement in freight safely and adjacent residential areas efficiently in Dakota County and the region, • Complete Streets – Treatments that consider truck movement as and understands the Minnesota part of total vehicular traffic can include: time-of-day delivery critical role the County DOT windows to reduce conflicts with other street users, and design transportation system guidelines for curb pullouts that can be used at different times plays in supporting for bus, truck parking, and other vehicles freight. Additional freight • Land Use Planning and Polices - Land use planning and policies to consideration will be ensure freight development areas are designated and preserved included as part of the and that development occurs adjacent to existing infrastructure 2019 Transportation Plan Update. 2. Also supporting MnDOT in the following areas:

Appendix A, Page 181 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response • Freight as a good neighbor • Integrate freight into all planning projects • First/Last –mile connections • Intermodal and multimodal facilities • Urban goods movement programs • Truck size and weight Transportation: Transportation: 1. Comments on guiding principles, page 13. Public and Agency 1. Suggestions for Involvement: Transit providers should also be included in Transportation Guiding transportation planning documents, studies, and projects. Context- Principles will be Sensitive Design: Consider adding language on how transit fits into addressed when the context-sensitive designs, including standards and aesthetics for bus County’s full stops/shelters as well as lighting and spacing of pedestrian crossings Transportation Plan is along transit corridors. updated in 2019. 2. Page 24: Goals 3.2 and 5.2 reference a multi-modal transportation 2. Comment noted, will system with land uses that support car-free lifestyles. However, consider in full emphasizing mobility with limited land access on minor arterials transportation Plan creates a challenging environment for public transit and land uses update that support transit use. 3. Comment noted, will 3. The separation of mobility and the transit goals within the County's consider in full Plan has carried over to implementation, such as a priority for transit transportation Plan on CR 42 (through the County-led East West Transit Study) yet the update design focus is on vehicle throughput which limits the number of 4. Noted, plan text revised pedestrian crossings, bus pullouts, and increases overall walking distances. We strongly suggest the County work toward a vision that 5. Noted, language on doesn't put both goals on competing paths. working with providers has been added MVTA 4. Page 36: Five transit stations (first bullet) including Rosemount Transit Station. 6. Map updated 5. Transit market area descriptions as defined by the Metropolitan 7. Map updated Council may not represent the full service needs of Dakota County. 8. Noted, plan revised MVTA encourages the County to work with local providers to determine the appropriate level of service for each area, regardless of its designations.

6. Page 38: Figure 3.11. Consider adjusting symbology. It appears Route 489 (which is classified as local), is covering up express service. Express is the primary type of service in the 35E corridor to Saint Paul. 7. MVTA's express routes using County Road 60 (491/492) were re- routed in the Fall of 2016 to use County Road 42. MVTA can provide updated route information if needed.

8. Page 39: Second bullet at top of page. These are MVTA's five member cities within Dakota County, we also have three cities in Scott County - Savage, Prior Lake, and Shakopee. 9. Noted, plan revised 9. Page 40: Rosemount Transit Center: and Downtown Saint Paul (Route 10. Noted, plan revised 484. 11. Noted, plan revised 10. Park and Ride Table: Consider updating this table to use the 2017

Appendix A, Page 182 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response Annual Regional Park-and-Ride System Report as it contains more 12. Comment noted accurate and up-to-date information on MVTA facilities. 11. Planned Transit Stations and Facilities: There is an expansion of Apple Valley Transit Station planned in 2019 (and funded by the Regional Solicitation, Dakota County, and MVTA), consider recognizing here. 12. Page 150: Transit Service Expansion Capital and Operating Costs: What will determine how this money will be spent? (County led studies or MVTA growth concepts?) To date, the County has been focused on capital, with the exception of the DCTC pilot. Land Use-Natural Resources: 1. Clarify relation between MNRRA and MRCCA, e.g., In 1988, the U.S. Congress established the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), a unit of the National Park System. The MNRRA shares the same boundary as the MRCCA, and the park’s Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP), signed by the Governor and Secretary of the Interior, incorporates by reference the MRCCA program for land use Land Use-Natural Resources: management. Rather than institute a separate layer of federal 1. Plan has been revised regulations, the MNRRA largely relies on the MRCCA to manage land use within the park. This reliance establishes a unique partnership and 2. Comment noted framework for land use management amongst the local, state and 3. Dakota County’s federal governments to protect the intrinsic resources of the Greenway Guidelines are Mississippi River Corridor. consistent with PCAs 2. Clarity: In the Objectives section “Corridor” is used multiple times, but being identified and the a direct connection to what “Corridor” refers to is not established. County encourages and National Amend the language in the Goal 5.11 section to “… values of the collaborates on open Park Service, Mississippi River Corridor (Corridor) …” space protection and management. The County Mississippi 3. While Spring Lake Park Reserve (SLPR) is the largest area of county does not own or manage National owned/operated lands and facilities within the MRCCA, it should not land along the BRRT or River and be the only area that PCAs are identified and planned for. The Plan MRRT other than a Recreation identifies and describes two Greenways that include the Big River narrow trail corridor, and Area Regional Trail and the Mississippi River Regional Trail. Part of what has no direct makes these trails special are the resources such as bluffs and management role in PCAs vegetation that meet the definition of PCAs. Identify/plan for PCAs owned by other agencies. associated with BRRT and MRRT. 4. See above 4. PG. 127-130 – POLICIES and GOALS – Again, the policies and goals for PCAs are only directed towards SLPR. They should apply to all county 5. Plan has been revised facilities including the Greenways with the Big Rivers Regional Trail 6. Plan has been revised and the Mississippi River Regional Trail.

5. We appreciate the map displaying the Shore Impact Zones (SIZ), but we would like to see the diagram of the SIZ from the MRCCA rules included in plans as well. It can be difficult to accurately depict the SIZ at larger scales and including the diagram helps alleviate this issue 6. We appreciate the attention and planning towards identifying and describing the Public River Corridor Views (PRVCs). We think an overview map that shows the location of each PRCV would be helpful

Appendix A, Page 183 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response for future use of the plan. Land Use-Natural Resources: 1. Chapter 5: Land Use & Natural Resources, p 86: Standards Adopted by Reference – The Dakota County Comprehensive Plan adopts by reference all future revisions to its official controls which are Land Use-Natural Resources: identified in the Plan upon their approval by the Board of 1. Comment noted. The Ravenna Commissioners, including all future amendments made as a result of VRWJPO standard is not a Township State law and rules. If this includes the Vermillion River Watershed County standard, and Joint Powers Organization standards we have a concern over a new would not be standard of theirs. They are making a change to their standard administered by the regarding Stormwater Prevention requirements for building projects. County. The practices are being reduced from 1 acre (43,560 sq. ft.) to 5,000 sq. ft. As a township, we are rejecting this standard. Transportation: Transportation: 1. Of late, Dakota County has discussed local assistance in economic 1. Comment noted. The City development initiatives and the Plan policies continue this trend. As a will be involved in plan growing community, the City looks forward to working collaboratively update with the Transportation Department so infrastructure needs are identified and placed within the CIP to facilitate development and 2. Noted, the Arterial increased tax base. A project of continued interest to the City is Connector Study is installation of the full interchange at County Road 42 and State Hwy identified as a 52. Construction of the full interchange will enhance economic contributing planning development initiatives at the City. Further, Rosemount looks activity. forward to partnering with the County to creatively problem solve 3. Comment noted and development issues that arise such as access, safety, and right of way appreciated dedication.

2. Rosemount supports investigation and ultimately construction of a reliever within the Hwy 3 corridor. The City Council is concerned about previous discussions related to expansion of Hwy 3, north of Downtown. The City believes it is more prudent to dedicate limited Rosemount resources to provision of appropriate relievers which would include extension of Akron Avenue and projected traffic signalization at County Road 42. Such focus on traffic improvements would also open new opportunities for economic development in Rosemount.

3. Rosemount appreciates the County’s interest in transit related issues and looks forward to additional transit opportunities within Rosemount similar to the recently launched Route 420 extension to DCTC. Rosemount is very interested in implementation strategies coming from the Robert Street Corridor Study such as express service along Hwy 52, which would serve local residents in several communities. Additional transit connections for our residents to the future Orange line are also desired. Land Use-Natural Resources: Land Use-Natural Resources: 1. It is noted in the Plan that the overall County population will increase 1. Comment noted. over the next decade but the number of youth (students) will remain Demographics of roughly the same, with larger increases in older age brackets. While communities within the this may be true overall, a community such as Rosemount will County vary, and the

Appendix A, Page 184 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response continue to experience population growth in the 5-20 year cohort and County seeks to work encourages the County to recognize appropriate amenities and with each community services. Examples of such amenities have been provided in the based on their needs. developed portion of the County, and similar options will be desired in 2. Plan has been revised. the developing edge cities, including Rosemount. 3. Comment noted. Dakota 2. P104 indicates that there is wastewater treatment within Rosemount. County does not have This is no longer the case, as the Metropolitan Council has closed that statutory authority to Plant. intervene in waste facility 3. Rosemount continues to request that the Dakota County Board take a siting. The County would more proactive role in waste management within the County. Many license a private sector cities in the Metro Area have made deliberate decisions about facility only after the LGU appropriate disposal of waste in their county. It appears that Dakota has approved it and the County is going to allow the private market to determine the method State has permitted it. and location, regardless of the potential land use impacts to existing The State has expressed a residents. As noted in the City Council’s June letter, the City has preference for private requested Board leadership to engage in open public discussion on a sector ownership and long term solution for waste management in the County. operation of waste facilities. Policy 5 of the Parks-Trails: County Solid Waste 1. The City is working with the County regarding appropriate locations Master Plan states that for regional trails. Exact locations should consider private the County will take a development goals and work with the construction of individual collaborative role in projects so as to benefit adjoining neighborhoods. private market facility development. Parks-Trails: 1. Comment noted

Transportation: 1. Nininger Township acknowledges the planned Transportation: functional/jurisdictional class change of Jacob Ave when the roadway 1. Comment noted extension between County Road 46 and County Road 47 is completed. 2. Comment noted, the 2. Marshan Township is planning for a connection between Highway 61 study identifies this as a th and Highway 316, extending 170 St further east. This road has not potential future local been funded, and it is anticipated to be an “Other” arterial once jurisdiction roadway. completed. Rural 3. Comment noted. These Collabora- 3. The County’s existing pedestrian and bicycle system map is different data have been tive via from the data we obtained from the County’s GIS within the Rural undergoing extensive Bolton and Collaborative Area. Essentially, the only trails we both show are the updating. Staff will Menk bike-supportive shoulders on County Road 46, 85, and segments of provide the same dataset County Road 47. All other shoulders are inconsistent between our to Bolton and Menk as is maps, submitted to the County on April 30, 2018. The Rural being used in the County Plan. Collaborative requests further coordination to ensure our maps of shoulder-supportive bikeways are consistent. Land Use-Natural Resources: 1. Comment noted Land Use-Natural Resources: 1. There are two new MUSA staging areas planned in western Empire Township, bordering Lakeville. These are shown in the draft Dakota Parks-Trails:

Appendix A, Page 185 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response County Rural Collaborative Plan submitted to the County April 30, 1. Map revisions have been 2018 and in the image below. addressed. Parks-Trails: 2. Map will be changed. 1. The existing parks, natural areas, and greenways map on page 63 shows scientific and natural areas and wildlife management areas in the legend. However, not all of the SNAs and WMAs in the Dakota County Collaborative are shown in this map. Please include the following natural areas in your final draft: • Chimney Rock SNA in Marshan Township • Hampton Woods WMA, located in both Castle Rock and Hampton Townships • Mud Creek WMA in Greenvale Township 2. Additionally, Empire Township notes different northern boundaries for Vermillion Highlands Research Recreation WMA. The northern boundary is north of 170th Street E, as shown on the DNR website/GIS data.

Transportation: Transportation: 1. On page 31 staff suggests an expansion to the definition of Metro 1. Comment noted and plan Mobility as “a shared ride public transportation service for certified revised riders who are unable to use regular fixed-route buses due to a disability or health condition. Trips are provided for any purpose.” 2. Dakota County will include a future 2. The Transportation element states the transportation plan will be functional class system in completely updated in 2019 (page 11). When Dakota County begins its full Transportation updating the transportation plan, please consider the following Plan update. The East- important highlights of the Scott County 2040 Transportation Plan: West connections also ▪ A future functional classification system was prepared, identifying will be considered as part ultimate functional classifications of Scott County roadways at of the future functional full-build out. This future classification will allow the County to class efforts. implement long-range corridor studies and prevent short-term developments from impacting a roadway’s end use (i.e., prevent direct accesses, implement access spacing guidelines, etc.). Scott County ▪ East-West principal arterials have been identified in the Future Functional Classification map (Figure VI-19) for CSAH 42/CSAH 78/MN TH 41 (future river crossing); CSAH 8 from US TH 169 to eastern County border (CSAH 70 in Dakota); and MN TH 19/CSAH 86 from US TH 169 to eastern County border (CSAH 86 in Dakota). These roadways serve as major east-west corridors through both Scott and Dakota counties. Scott County requests that the previous identified corridors be mapped in the Dakota County Comprehensive Plan Update.

3. Scott County looks forward to collaborating with Dakota County on future transportation planning efforts. There is an opportunity in the next round of plan updates to collaborate on a more synchronized process to take advantage of our common transportation issues South of the River. Scott County staff is interested in partnering with Dakota 3. Dakota County will seek County staff to identify and prepare a work plan that meets both of Scott County’s

Appendix A, Page 186 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response our common objectives. When Dakota County begins updating the involvement in the full transportation plan in 2019, please consider ways to collaborate with Plan update. Scott County. 4. Dakota County identifies 4. Scott County and the City of Savage requests Dakota County‘s the TH 13 corridor study, continued support to reduce congestion, improve mobility and safety but has not included in the State Trunk Highway 13 Corridor between US 169 and recommendations from 35W. Please include in the County’s Plan a description of the TH 13 each plan. The County has Dakota -Yosemite Avenue Corridor Study, the grade separation identified the 13 as an construction project at Dakota Avenue, future corridor studies and eligible trunk highway proposed construction projects at Chowen and Washburn project under its sales and Avenue. Additionally, these efforts will continue to serve the Ports of use tax-eligible projects. Savage and all associated and other industrial businesses in the TH 13 5. Thank you Corridor. 5. Staff commends the plan’s discussion of autonomous and connected vehicles and their impact on the county’s transportation system in the future. Scott County is partnering with the University of Minnesota’s Resilient Communities Project this academic year to research and present case studies on how AV/CV could impact local development patterns and interact with existing infrastructure. We are happy to share the results of this student-led research to Dakota County staff once completed. Parks-Trails: 1. Please continue to coordinate with Three Rivers Park District as Lake Marion Greenway nears implementation at the Scott/Dakota County border so we can determine the best route through Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve. Parks-Trails: 1. Comment noted Three Rivers 2. Please label Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve, noting the hyphen 2. Plan has been revised Park District between Murphy and Hanrehan. 3. Map updated 3. The official Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve boundaries are noted on the attached Map A. It appears that northern boundary may not be consistent with current property ownership. Please modify the map (and others if applicable) if found to be inaccurate. Land Use-Natural Resources: Land Use-Natural Resources: 1. Page 90, under the “Land Resources Vision and Goals” section. It is 1. Comment noted. The Plan stated: “Agricultural operations in Dakota County are sustainable, vision describes a desired significant contributors to the county’s economy and the wellbeing of future state, including county residents.” Based on the definition of sustainability on page sustainable agriculture. Vermillion 88, the data the County and VRWJPO (perhaps the NCRWMO too) has 2. Comment noted – the River supports that agricultural operations in the County may not be County role has not been Watershed sustainable based on existing environmental and perhaps societal defined in some areas Join Powers burdens of continued production agriculture under currently applied related to natural Organization management practices. resource quality, but 2. Page 90, Goal 5.4. Specific role(s) of Dakota County in conserving or could include research, protecting air quality and minerals should be stated with this goal. education, collaboration, Dakota County has a goal to conserve or protect minerals, but and other levels of objective 4 is seeking to find the County role. In order to have the involvement. The Plan

Appendix A, Page 187 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response goal, shouldn’t Dakota County have a role already in place? Since has been revised to add Dakota County doesn’t regulate land use, except in Shoreland, the air quality to Objective 4. roles should be explicitly stated. 3. Plan has been revised 3. Page 97. Water Management Policies. Add an additional policy to 4. Plan has been revised work with local communities and state agencies to identify and implement TMDL waste-load allocation reduction projects required 5. Plan has been revised under the MS4 permit. 4. Page 102, Goal 5.6. Consider adding another objective that indicates the County will work to identify high quality infiltration areas to be protected from contamination and to utilize for maintaining future groundwater recharge. 5. Page 104. Wastewater Goals. There are no objectives listed to accompany the goals listed. The objectives should state what the County will do or the role it will fill in Wastewater. Transportation: Transportation: 1. Pages 19 and 21: Please confirm if the information in Table 3.2 and 1. Table 3.2 and Figure 3.6 Figure 3.3 reflects projected 2030 or 2040 Average Daily Traffic. state the projected 2030 volumes, based on slower 2. Page 29: Washington County is grateful to Dakota County for its growth in the past decade contribution to our joint transitway planning efforts and looks and in discussion with forward to continued collaboration. Metropolitan Council 3. Please clarify the paragraph for the Red Rock Transitway (Bus Rapid staff. Transit) to reflect the Implementation Plan completed in 2016 (not 2. Thank you 2014) suggested that extension of service to Hastings is supportable in the long-term. The Alternatives Analysis Update completed in 2014 3. Comment noted, identified bus rapid transit as the preferred mode for the corridor. language modified to The information as currently presented mixes the plans and resulting “implementation plan recommendations. does not suggest Hastings service implementation in 4. Page 35: Please consider updating the METRO Gold Line alignment to the near- to medium- turn south at Helmo Avenue/Bielenberg Drive terminating at Washington term.” Woodbury Theatre. County 4. Map has been revised 5. Pages 41 and 42: Please update Figures 3.17 and 3.18 to reflect the Point Douglas Regional Trail that extends from Hastings north across 5. Map has been revised the Mississippi River and into Washington County as built. It should be

shown as an existing (not planned) trail. 6. Comment noted, table 6. Page 134: Please update Table 6.1 to reflect bus rapid transit (BRT) revised and not commuter rail as the mode under development for the Red Rock Corridor. 7. Comment noted 7. Pages i, 36, and 38-42: Continue to identify health, equity, transportation, and park/trail needs through studies and gap analysis. Land Use-Natural Resources: 1. Comment noted Land Use-Natural Resources: 2. Comment noted 1. Healthy Communities – Please note: Dakota County does not include a component on Healthy Communities in its draft comprehensive plan, 3. Comment noted but it is a component of the Resiliency and Sustainability chapter of 4. Comment noted the draft Washington County Comprehensive Plan. Page 10:

Appendix A, Page 188 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Table A.2: Agency Review Comments Jurisdiction Comments Proposed Response Washington County is encouraged by Dakota County’s recognition of 5. Comments noted – the “physical environment as a component for influencing the health efforts are being of all residents and the vitality of the community.” In addition the collaboratively addressed County has identified the intersection of the social determinants of with Dakota County health on factors included in long term planning. Other items of Public Health. particular note:

• Page i: Trends identified which can impact health including: Parks-Trails: o Growth and density of a suburban area 1. Comment noted. o The need for transit and multimodal transportation o Environmental factors effecting or promoting health • Page 3: Demonstrated commitment to community engagement during the planning process, utilizing a variety of methods to gather resident input. • Areas of the plan that reflect “Health in All Policies” concepts include: o Pages 11-13: Guiding Principles for Transportation o Pages 12, 59, 75, 88: Regional opportunities for connectedness o Pages 13 and 33: Complete Streets o Page 33: Transit Oriented Development o Page 59: Guiding Principles for Park System 2. Pages i, 36, and 38-42: Continue to identify health, equity, transportation, and park/trail needs through studies and gap analysis. 3. Page 3: Consider implementing ongoing community input and methods to hear from diverse or underserved populations when addressing equity. 4. Page 154: Consider building on the Farm Land plan to a) include agriculture assets to provide access to healthy, locally sourced food, b) County, city and township support/collaboration to have access to healthy, safe and affordable food, c) consider access to healthy food and locally sourced food as an economic development factor. Parks-Trails: 1. Page 61: Consider a reference to tobacco free recreation space for visitors (either 4.1 Great Places or 4.3 Protected Places).

Public Comments Received on the Draft DC2040 Online survey: April 1 to October 1, 2018 • By the end of 2019 you are definitely going to need a 3rd lane on Northbound Cedar Avenue from 138th Street to HWY 13. • This comprehensive plan is excellent based upon growth assumptions and other economic realities. The only thing that could improve this plan is to accelerate the development of each area strategically. Money might

Appendix A, Page 189 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

not always be available in the proportions of today. And increased development will encourage growth in every sector. Thank you for a job well done. • Please prioritize the high needs for pedestrian and bicycle improvements in West Saint Paul. We especially need a N-S corridor for bikes (Delaware Ave would be a good use). I'm also looking forward to improved busing on the Robert St. corridor. • More sidewalks, businesses set back from streets, more flowers, gardens, beautification, less shade, more trails.

Burnsville International Festival: Saturday, July 21, 2018 65 individuals stopped to view displays, ask questions, or add a sticky note comment to the displays. • Need more swimming in lakes and beaches • Where are transit benches and shelters • Thank you for installing pedestrian flashing lights at Burnsville Parkway near the Wyndham Hills Condos. It’s much easier to cross. • General comments on appreciation of the trail and greenway system, interest in future trails. • General comments expressing interest in the METRO Orange Line project

Dakota County Library, Rosemount: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 21 individuals stopped to view displays, ask questions, or write down comments. • Hope Lakeville will do a Post Office that is not in a mall and has better access for a drop box outside. Getting inside PO is very inconvenient when events are going on. • We like the trail system by Lake Marion • There has been too much growth – would like fewer people. Rosemount is becoming like Bloomington. • Appreciate that the countryside has protected open space • Interested in greater water and groundwater protection • Buffers are effective in cleaning up several lakes in the county • Deer are an increasing problem and traffic hazard • Simple solutions like not mowing ditches or adding a flushing bar to haying/harvesting equipment can help protect nesting birds.

Dakota County Fair: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 27 individuals stopped to view displays and ask questions. No written comments were received.

Social Media/Next Door Mona Sommers, July 31, 2018 Any plans on making roads safer for bikers? There are not many roads with bicycle lanes and no clear structure for bike commuters. Cars drive carelessly, me and my kids got hit by car when biking. It might be a low population, but deserves safe riding conditions.

Marlon Tucker, July 30, 2018 Outstanding. I am so impressed with this plan. Mother Earth is first.

Clifford S., August 20, 2018 Bicyclists should be following the same rules that cars do, like stopping for red lights, and signaling turns. Or event staying in the bike lane, instead of riding side by side at 10 miles an hour on a 30+ mile an hour road. And what taxes do they pay to maintain the road? I pay 250 dollars a year for tabs and 45 cents a gallon towards road repair. A person on a bike cannot sustain the common speed limit on the street that was designed for automobile traffic. Many of which do not follow any of the laws for being on the road. All while contributing nothing towards road

Appendix A, Page 190 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 repair. That being said, yes, we do need to share the road. However, to blame all accidents on the driver of a motor vehicle is erroneously dangerous. Pulling into traffic without signaling or looking, and running red lights can get you killed; and this is not the fault of the driver. I’m not saying this was what happened to you and your kids, but many times it is the case. We all have to be more educated on safe travels along roadways that bikes are allowed on, not just car drivers.

Jamie T., July 31, 2018 How about cracking down on speeding? It’s appalling how fast people drive around here and I rarely see any cops sitting out.

Appendix A, Page 191 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Appendix A, Page 192 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

APPENDIX B: PLAN SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL DOCUMENTS

Draft Plan Submittal Based on stakeholder review comments received during the six month formal review period (April 1 to October 1, 2018, documented in Appendix A), the draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan was revised with technical corrections, updated information, and modifications to some plan policies. Prior to submittal of the draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for review, the stakeholder comments and plan revisions were reviewed with the Dakota County Planning Commission and the Dakota County Board of Commissioners.

This section includes documentation from the following meetings prior to submittal of the draft DC2040 to the Metropolitan Council for review:

October 25, 2018 Dakota County Planning Commission meeting to review comments and plan revisions, and provide recommendation on submittal of the revised draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council. Meeting minutes are included in this appendix.

November 27, 2018 Dakota County Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on the revised draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan and approval of plan submittal to the Metropolitan Council for their review. Board papers and resolutions are included.

Appendix B, Page 193 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Dakota County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Date: October 25, 2018 Time: 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Members Present Staff Present Others Present

Mike Greco Barry Graham Kurt Chatfield Rita Trapp (HKGi) Jerry Rich Ramraj Singh Steve Sullivan Fred Rozumalski (Barr Timothy Tabor Christopher Ross Jessica Johnson Engineering) Lori Hansen Nate Reitz Lil Leatham Anne Koutnik (Eagan) Jill Smith Jim Guttmann Joe Walton Greg Oxley Tony Nelson Mary Jackson Amy Hunting Donald Post Brad Becker

Meeting Called to Order Time: 7:00 p.m. By: Chair Greco

Audience items not on the agenda Comments/Notes: No audience members came forward.

Approval of agenda Motion by: Commissioner Guttmann Second: Commissioner Nelson Vote: Unanimously approved.

Approval of minutes (from September 27, 2018 meeting) Motion by: Commissioner Hansen Second: Commissioner Singh Vote: Unanimously approved; with Commissioner Greco, Commissioner Hansen, Commissioner Hunting, Commissioner Graham, and Commissioner Post abstaining.

Item # 1: Draft Dakota Comprehensive Plan Action / Information Comments/Notes: Kurt Chatfield gave the Planning Commission an overview of the Dakota County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and what it contains. Mary Jackson recapped the process and public review that has been a part of the Plan update. The update process began in 2016 and Mary discussed the County Board requests, and statutory requirements that have been a part of the process since that time. The three phases of the update included; Phase 1: Research, Phase 2: Draft Goals, and Phase 3: Draft Plan. Mary reviewed the list of the entities that reviewed and commented on the draft Plan. The plan has a yellow highlight where changes were made based on comments submitted through the 6-month agency review period. Mary presented the comments to the group and highlighted those that were more substantial. The Transportation section of the plan had the most comments, many that were technical. There were very few comments submitted regarding the Parks section of the Plan. Brad Becker reviewed the comments received on the Land Use-Natural Resources section, which received a

Appendix B, Page 194 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040 moderate number of comments. Mary identified the next steps of the draft Plan review and adoption process to the Planning Commission.

Questions and comments by Commissioners along with responses from staff (italics):

• Was a consultant used to complete the Comp Plan update? Yes, consultants (HKGI and SEH) were used and are credited in the front section of the plan. • Many of the agencies that were invited to review the plan did not comment. Is there a particular reason for this? Is the response rate we received common or typical compared to other updates? It could be due to the fact that each city is also working on its own plan. A reminder was sent to those that had not responded. Some entities responded with a ‘no comment’. The response is similar to what we received in previous updates. Since the plan is an update without major departures from the last plan, it was familiar to many agencies. • What type of wildlife protective practices in road projects were suggested by the DNR Region 3? They identified a need for wildlife crossings (e.g., turtles), smart salting practices, biodegradable netting, culvert design, and other suggestions included on page 171 of the Plan comments. These issues may be addressed in the upcoming Transportation Plan update scheduled for 2019, and operational manuals. • The Planning Commission reviewed the Principal Arterial Study and provided comments to the Physical Development Committee, but was not asked to make a formal recommendation. The Commissioner expressed an interest in having the Planning Commission make a formal recommendation for these types of studies. • How do upstream watershed standards and output affect downstream organizations? It can be a large impact depending on what the standards are and how they affect the area. The County cannot impose higher standards on other districts. • What is the nature of the Met Council plan review? What types of comments could they make? The Met Council reviews the Plan for consistency with Metropolitan Council policy and plans, conformance to statute, and compatibility with other communities. • How does the County’s Ped/Bike Study relate to the information in the Plan? The Ped/Bike Study goes into more detail than the information included in the Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. • Did the Principal Arterial study involve coordination with other agencies and counties? Yes. The study included participation from MNDOT, Metropolitan Council, cities, and adjacent counties. • How much input does the County have in well permitting issues? The County does have a role although that role is limited. The MN DNR permits appropriations, however, the County Board recently directed staff to begin work on a County Groundwater Plan. There are a number of entities involved and this plan will evaluate and refine the County’s role related to groundwater supply and quality.

Motion to recommend to the Physical Development Committee of the Whole (and County Board) that the draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan (DC2040) be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for final review.

Motion by: Commissioner Singh Second: Commissioner Tabor Vote: Unanimously approved.

Appendix B, Page 195 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Dakota County Board of Commissioners Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing

Appendix B, Page 196 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Appendix B, Page 197 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Plan Submittal to Metropolitan Council

Appendix B, Page 198 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Appendix B, Page 199 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Plan Approval DC2040 was submitted for review to the Metropolitan Council on December 12, 2018. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) also received DC2040 for review of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) component at that time.

This section of Appendix B includes documentation of approval by the Metropolitan Council and MN DNR, and adoption by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners.

April 26, 2019 The Metropolitan Council notification that Dakota County’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan meets all Metropolitan Land Planning Ace requirements; conforms to the regional system plans including transportation, aviation, water resources management, and parks; and is consistent with THRIVE MSP 2040, and is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Dakota County authorized to place its 2040 Comprehensive Plan into effect.

April 29, 2019 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources final approval of the Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan MRCCA component

June 18, 2019 Dakota County Board of Commissioners adoption of the Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Resolution No. 19-578)

Appendix B, Page 200 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metropolitan Council Approval

Appendix B, Page 201 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Appendix B, Page 202 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Approval

Appendix B, Page 203 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Dakota County Board of Commissioners Adoption (Resolution 19-578)

Appendix B, Page 204 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Appendix B, Page 205 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Appendix B, Page 206 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC FORECASTS BY TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES

The following table includes population, household, and job forecasts for 2020, 2030, and 2040 by Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ). Using the Metropolitan Council forecasts as a base, many cities have updated specific TAZ data based on proposed land use changes and growth as part of their Comprehensive Plan update process. The data source (unadjusted Metropolitan Council data or the community’s updated version) is noted for each community. For communities that updated forecasts for one but not all of the projected decades (e.g., 2040), the unadjusted Council data is also provided as a base. Several, but not all communities highlighted the TAZs that are split with another jurisdiction, and indicated that the forecasts are for their portion of the TAZ only. Their notations are included.

These data are provided as a placeholder until Dakota County updates its transportation data model using projected land use information from communities in the County, in coordination with the Metropolitan Council.

Table C.1: Demographic Forecasts by Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs Apple Valley City Updates 519 519 25 10 10 25 10 20 30 10 20 520 520 630 220 10 640 220 20 640 220 40 527 527 560 200 610 550 200 620 550 200 640 528 528 3,120 1,330 20 3,420 1,460 20 3,720 1,580 30 590 590 1,270 470 320 1,260 470 360 1,280 480 400 591 591 3,340 1,260 110 3,330 1,260 120 3,370 1,280 140 592 592 1,650 620 680 1,630 620 700 1,630 620 730 593 593 0 0 1,710 0 0 1,730 0 0 1,760 594 594 970 400 260 1,000 410 260 1,060 430 270 595 595 670 270 150 710 290 170 770 310 190 596 596 2,450 1,000 220 2,460 1,020 220 2,520 1,040 230 597 597 1,670 680 30 1,720 700 40 1,810 740 60 599 599 1,700 670 70 1,760 690 70 1,880 720 70 600 600 1,370 550 40 1,400 560 40 1,480 580 40 601 601 2,900 1,130 70 2,980 1,170 80 3,130 1,220 90 602 602 1,570 550 100 1,530 540 110 1,530 530 120 603 603 3,990 1,390 60 3,890 1,350 60 3,900 1,330 70 604 604 920 320 0 950 330 0 980 340 0 605 605 2,420 850 200 2,450 860 260 2,500 880 320 606 606 1,630 580 80 1,680 600 90 1,770 620 100 607 607 4,830 1,960 380 4,760 1,920 390 4,810 1,910 400 608 608 1,160 470 2,090 1,140 460 2,100 1,150 460 2,140 609 609 410 170 170 410 170 190 400 170 220 610 610 800 320 1,450 940 380 1,460 1,130 460 1,480 611 611 2,230 820 3,010 2,440 920 2,990 2,660 1,000 3,010 612 612 20 10 1,610 90 40 1,710 200 80 1,800 613 613 1,020 430 700 1,410 590 750 1,880 780 790 614 614 1,290 540 30 1,500 630 40 1,630 680 60 615 615 2,410 1,000 140 2,820 1,180 150 3,120 1,290 160 616 616 2,780 1,160 370 3,320 1,390 380 3,750 1,560 400 617 617 310 130 440 470 200 470 670 280 510 618 618 1,500 630 30 1,760 740 60 1,940 810 110

Appendix C, Page 207 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 619 619 3,010 1,260 610 3,840 1,600 660 4,720 1,960 700 621 621 875 300 20 915 320 60 990 330 0 Burnsville City *Split TAZ Updates 541 1,740 824 325 1,808 853 349 1,874 868 398 542* 1,326 462 37 1,378 478 40 1,319 455 33 543 2,568 999 267 2,670 1,033 286 2,544 978 241 544 681 232 2,015 708 240 2,163 675 227 1,820 545 0 0 192 0 0 206 0 0 212 546 0 0 1,632 0 0 1,752 0 0 1,653 547 355 231 1,096 369 239 1,176 2,278 1,006 1,304 548 1,266 730 559 1,316 756 599 1,761 921 534 549 412 149 1,346 428 154 1,445 408 146 1,296 550 673 379 2,153 700 392 2,310 667 371 2,117 551 1,366 605 123 1,420 626 132 1,353 592 111 552 1,364 607 376 1,418 628 403 1,397 613 387 553 2,084 833 149 2,166 862 159 2,076 821 200 554 1,808 762 149 1,879 788 159 1,791 746 159 556 717 254 122 745 263 132 710 249 111 557 2,002 755 143 2,081 781 153 2,066 773 279 558 2,203 1,035 19 2,290 1,070 20 2,182 1,013 17 559 1,088 397 709 1,131 411 761 1,078 389 640 560 2,094 828 156 2,176 857 167 2,076 812 141 561 581 368 3,672 603 380 3,943 992 529 3,616 562 736 311 1,363 765 322 1,464 729 305 1,292 563 2,846 1,289 480 2,958 1,334 515 3,650 1,599 535 564 4 1 2,256 4 1 2,422 228 92 2,943 565 853 314 519 887 324 557 908 332 626 566 1,996 751 575 2,075 777 617 2,053 766 519 567 1,606 582 91 1,670 602 98 2,282 850 121 568 2,564 939 103 2,665 971 111 2,557 926 93 569 1,793 633 18 1,864 655 19 1,778 621 16 570 1,323 447 819 1,375 463 880 1,337 449 740 571 1,536 569 893 1,596 589 959 1,715 635 1,170 572 1,803 637 202 1,874 659 216 1,786 624 182 573 0 0 624 0 0 669 0 0 607 574 0 0 1,288 0 0 1,383 0 0 1,163 575 0 0 2,584 0 0 2,774 1,183 479 3,992 576 2,098 1,083 1,042 2,181 1,120 1,118 2,597 1,270 2,496 577 3 1 3,543 3 1 3,804 3 1 3,509 578 1,440 497 1,074 1,496 515 1,154 1,426 487 970 579 962 296 1,124 1,000 306 1,207 953 290 1,043 580 444 175 11 462 181 12 487 190 10 581 1,508 618 176 1,568 639 189 1,521 616 316 582 521 186 520 541 192 559 516 182 814 583* 3,488 1,527 204 3,626 1,580 219 3,567 1,540 229 584 1,622 579 32 1,686 599 34 1,610 568 29 585 926 334 16 962 346 17 919 328 14 586 344 145 120 358 150 129 343 143 1,119 587 2,918 1,278 731 3,033 1,322 785 2,890 1,251 660 588 1,926 824 263 2,002 853 281 1,919 812 237 589 545 182 11 567 188 12 540 178 10 598 1,722 651 624 1,790 673 671 1,706 637 753 661* 1,643 605 158 1,707 626 170 1,637 596 143 Eagan City Updates 472 213 0 0 1100 0 0 1100 0 0 1100 472 217 2 1 948 2 1 1000 2 1 1000 472 958 2 1 400 2 1 800 2 1 1400 472 1402 0 0 415 1857 775 621 1827 775 621 472 1571 0 0 80 0 0 280 0 0 280 473 201 0 0 400 0 0 600 0 0 700

Appendix C, Page 208 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 473 209 0 0 3500 0 0 3500 0 0 3600 474 211 15 6 260 14 6 260 0 0 260 474 212 0 0 350 0 0 350 0 0 500 474 216 2 1 42 2 1 40 2 1 40 474 220 264 108 0 259 108 0 255 108 0 474 222 0 0 1100 0 0 1100 0 0 1100 474 223 0 0 431 0 0 450 0 0 450 474 225 0 0 400 0 0 400 0 0 400 475 205 0 0 2000 0 0 2000 0 0 2000 475 210 0 0 2000 0 0 2000 0 0 2000 475 214 0 0 1100 0 0 1100 0 0 1100 475 215 0 0 960 0 0 960 0 0 960 475 218 24 10 900 24 10 900 24 10 900 475 219 176 72 0 173 72 0 170 72 0 476 207 51 21 30 50 21 30 49 21 30 476 208 2 1 1300 2 1 1400 2 1 1400 476 221 225 92 0 240 100 0 255 108 0 476 224 318 130 0 383 160 0 495 210 0 477 206 0 0 250 0 0 250 0 0 300 477 238 2 1 600 2 1 700 2 1 800 477 244 0 0 620 0 0 650 0 0 700 478 257 0 0 2010 0 0 2010 0 0 2010 478 273 523 214 600 513 214 700 504 214 750 478 278 0 0 480 0 0 490 0 0 500 478 1706 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 479 285 2240 916 220 2195 916 220 2159 916 220 480 260 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 0 0 1900 480 261 110 45 300 108 45 400 106 45 500 480 264 1978 809 120 1938 809 120 1907 809 120 480 267 0 0 910 0 0 910 0 0 910 480 281 200 82 0 196 82 0 193 82 0 480 284 438 179 0 429 179 0 422 179 0 481 231 342 140 0 335 140 0 330 140 0 481 232 156 64 900 153 64 1000 151 64 1100 481 239 1946 796 110 1907 796 110 1876 796 110 481 247 682 279 250 669 279 350 658 279 350 481 250 1667 682 450 1634 682 450 1607 682 450 481 255 0 800 0 850 0 850 482 230 883 361 194 865 361 200 851 361 200 482 240 1345 550 0 1605 670 0 1579 670 0 482 254 381 156 216 374 156 220 368 156 220 482 269 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 50 483 226 0 0 612 0 0 650 0 0 650 483 235 0 0 1350 0 0 1350 0 0 1350 483 245 0 0 60 0 0 60 0 0 60 483 246 120 49 827 117 49 820 115 49 820 483 253 0 0 14 0 0 20 0 0 20 484 251 0 0 824 556 232 820 1650 700 800 484 252 694 284 189 680 284 190 669 284 190 485 248 0 0 670 0 0 700 0 0 800 485 249 0 0 223 0 0 230 0 0 230 486 227 0 0 686 0 0 690 0 0 700 486 242 0 0 281 0 0 300 0 0 400 487 228 0 0 557 0 0 560 0 0 570 487 237 0 0 1436 0 0 1500 0 0 1500 488 233 0 0 430 0 0 500 0 0 550 488 234 2 1 235 2 1 240 2 1 250 488 243 0 0 252 0 0 300 0 0 400 489 236 523 214 14 546 228 20 537 228 20 489 241 543 222 0 532 222 0 523 222 0 489 256 0 0 87 0 0 90 0 0 100 490 229 39 16 400 38 16 800 38 16 1600

Appendix C, Page 209 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 494 258 2 1 1526 2 1 1600 2 1 1600 494 282 2 1 300 2 1 400 2 1 400 495 259 2 1 50 2 1 50 2 1 600 495 280 0 0 6500 0 0 6800 0 0 7000 495 287 372 152 0 364 152 0 358 152 0 496 263 1306 534 0 1280 534 0 1259 534 0 496 266 971 397 4 951 397 10 936 397 10 496 268 963 394 0 944 394 0 929 394 0 496 276 567 232 0 556 232 0 547 232 0 496 279 797 326 0 781 326 0 768 326 0 496 289 408 167 0 400 167 0 394 167 0 496 294 247 101 50 242 101 50 238 101 50 497 262 0 0 308 0 0 310 0 0 310 497 265 575 235 600 563 235 650 554 235 700 497 271 604 247 403 592 247 410 582 247 410 497 275 807 330 0 791 330 0 778 330 0 497 277 782 320 0 767 320 0 754 320 0 498 270 0 0 160 0 0 200 0 0 200 498 272 0 0 1025 0 0 1000 0 0 800 499 274 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 499 286 0 0 330 0 0 350 0 0 350 499 292 834 341 10 817 341 20 804 341 20 500 283 186 76 247 182 76 250 179 76 250 500 288 198 81 0 194 81 0 191 81 0 500 290 648 265 0 635 265 0 625 265 0 500 291 254 104 0 249 104 0 283 120 0 500 293 164 67 0 161 67 0 158 67 0 500 295 0 0 0 120 50 0 118 50 0 501 297 2 1 60 2 1 60 2 1 60 501 299 345 141 10 338 141 10 332 141 10 501 301 435 178 0 427 178 0 420 178 501 311 0 0 170 0 0 200 0 0 200 501 316 90 37 0 89 37 0 87 37 501 324 44 18 114 43 18 120 42 18 120 501 325 577 236 142 565 236 150 556 236 150 502 338 738 302 20 724 302 20 712 302 20 502 339 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 502 346 98 40 0 96 40 0 94 40 0 502 348 242 99 0 237 99 0 233 99 0 502 355 203 83 0 199 83 0 196 83 0 503 370 308 126 0 302 126 0 297 126 0 503 371 86 35 0 84 35 0 82 35 0 503 372 315 129 0 309 129 0 304 129 0 503 376 142 58 0 139 58 0 137 58 0 503 377 247 101 10 242 101 10 238 101 10 504 378 308 126 0 302 126 0 297 126 0 504 379 355 145 0 347 145 0 342 145 0 504 383 132 54 0 129 54 0 127 54 0 504 385 120 49 0 117 49 0 210 89 0 505 343 521 213 15 510 213 20 502 213 20 505 345 425 174 0 417 174 0 410 174 0 505 347 220 90 294 216 90 300 212 90 350 505 358 313 128 0 307 128 0 302 128 505 359 254 104 0 249 104 0 264 112 505 360 193 79 12 189 79 15 186 79 15 505 366 83 34 0 81 34 0 80 34 0 505 369 183 75 0 180 75 0 177 75 0 506 308 438 179 5 429 179 5 422 179 5 506 309 435 178 0 427 178 0 420 178 0 506 310 222 91 0 218 91 0 214 91 0 506 314 521 213 0 510 213 0 502 213 0 506 318 144 59 0 141 59 0 139 59 0

Appendix C, Page 210 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 506 320 2 1 240 2 1 300 2 1 300 506 321 562 230 30 551 230 30 542 230 30 507 319 220 90 0 244 102 0 240 102 0 507 323 443 181 0 434 181 0 427 181 0 507 331 357 146 0 388 162 0 382 162 0 508 302 333 136 0 326 136 0 321 136 0 508 307 267 109 0 261 109 0 257 109 0 509 298 477 195 178 467 195 180 474 201 180 509 322 562 230 0 551 230 0 542 230 0 510 337 677 277 40 664 277 50 700 297 50 510 367 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 15 510 368 134 55 0 156 65 0 153 65 0 510 386 303 124 0 297 124 0 292 124 0 511 594 37 15 20 36 15 20 35 15 20 516 393 335 137 0 328 137 0 323 137 0 516 419 465 190 97 455 190 60 448 190 40 517 391 188 77 0 208 87 0 229 97 0 517 392 125 51 0 122 51 0 120 51 0 517 394 227 93 0 223 93 0 219 93 0 517 418 110 45 5 180 75 5 177 75 5 518 396 46 19 5 46 19 5 45 19 5 518 398 181 74 0 177 74 0 174 74 0 518 400 408 167 0 400 167 0 394 167 0 518 401 337 138 0 331 138 0 325 138 0 518 1724 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 521 402 423 173 0 415 173 0 408 173 0 521 403 110 45 0 108 45 0 106 45 0 521 404 276 113 5 271 113 5 266 113 5 521 407 391 160 0 383 160 0 377 160 521 414 956 391 0 937 391 0 922 391 521 421 210 86 0 206 86 0 203 86 0 522 340 330 135 40 323 135 40 318 135 40 522 354 262 107 0 256 107 0 252 107 0 522 373 528 216 0 518 216 0 509 216 0 522 384 95 39 10 93 39 10 139 59 10 523 326 0 0 170 0 0 180 0 0 180 523 328 215 88 0 211 88 0 207 88 0 523 330 736 301 0 721 301 0 709 301 0 523 335 457 187 90 448 187 100 441 187 100 524 351 736 301 89 721 301 90 709 301 90 524 356 196 80 0 192 80 0 189 80 0 524 361 29 12 40 29 12 40 28 12 40 524 374 633 259 0 621 259 0 610 259 0 524 387 0 0 175 0 0 200 0 0 200 524 390 0 0 187 0 0 190 0 0 190 525 352 328 134 305 321 134 310 316 134 310 525 375 1098 449 0 1076 449 0 1058 449 0 526 409 413 169 0 405 169 0 398 169 0 526 413 653 267 0 640 267 0 629 267 0 526 417 174 71 0 170 71 0 167 71 0 526 422 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 529 410 86 35 387 84 35 390 82 35 390 529 415 535 219 0 525 219 0 516 219 0 529 423 120 49 0 117 49 0 115 49 0 530 399 379 155 150 371 155 150 365 155 150 530 405 37 15 120 36 15 120 625 265 280 530 406 20 8 20 19 8 20 542 230 170 530 408 24 10 268 24 10 260 24 10 260 530 411 0 0 425 0 0 425 0 0 425 531 341 5 2 88 5 2 90 5 2 90 531 365 337 138 241 331 138 240 325 138 240 532 342 597 244 9 585 244 9 575 244 9

Appendix C, Page 211 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 532 344 689 282 0 676 282 0 665 282 0 532 363 325 133 136 319 133 140 313 133 140 532 388 0 0 359 0 0 350 0 0 300 532 389 293 120 74 288 120 70 283 120 70 533 380 0 0 748 0 0 720 0 0 700 533 381 174 71 0 170 71 0 167 71 0 534 349 377 154 10 369 154 10 363 154 10 534 350 653 267 0 640 267 0 629 267 0 534 353 790 323 0 774 323 0 761 323 0 534 362 487 199 0 477 199 0 469 199 0 535 305 474 194 0 465 194 0 457 194 0 535 306 291 119 0 285 119 0 280 119 0 535 327 672 275 172 683 285 150 684 290 150 536 303 1381 565 0 1354 565 0 1332 565 0 536 304 347 142 0 340 142 0 335 142 0 536 312 966 395 3 946 395 5 931 395 5 537 333 447 183 0 438 183 0 431 183 0 537 334 1653 676 3 1620 676 5 1593 676 5 538 296 0 0 800 0 0 800 0 0 800 538 300 469 192 62 460 192 70 453 192 70 538 313 792 324 35 776 324 35 764 324 35 538 315 1440 589 150 1411 589 150 1388 589 150 538 329 963 394 61 944 394 50 929 394 50 538 332 0 0 30 0 0 40 0 0 40 539 317 570 233 138 558 233 140 549 233 140 540 336 0 0 80 0 0 80 0 0 80 540 357 169 69 10 165 69 10 163 69 10 540 364 1284 525 0 1258 525 0 1237 525 0 542 605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 555 395 0 0 40 0 0 40 0 0 40 555 397 0 0 212 0 0 200 0 0 200 555 412 372 152 0 364 152 0 358 152 0 555 416 296 121 0 290 121 0 285 121 0 555 420 311 127 0 331 138 0 325 138 0 Farmington City *split TAZ Updates 639 6,278 1,961 126 6,278 1,961 126 6,481 2,043 126 640* 1,957 664 463 2,093 719 475 2,093 719 475 641 1,868 874 1,961 1,881 879 1,965 1,881 879 1,965 642* 238 86 775 949 370 926 1,034 405 919 643 2,672 1,051 925 2,672 1,051 982 2,672 1,051 1,056 644* 2,460 763 352 3,593 1,216 446 4,106 1,424 641 645* 3,339 1,082 149 3,952 1,327 187 3,952 1,327 187 684* 32 10 0 32 10 0 330 131 127 685* 313 109 0 313 109 0 1,155 450 56 697* 573 243 267 959 397 267 959 397 267 711* 268 92 250 268 92 354 268 92 354 713* 4,298 1,563 332 4,298 1,563 336 4,929 1,819 336 715* 2 1 0 651 260 0 954 383 0 716* 3 1 0 363 145 136 1,686 680 290 City Hastings Updates 2463 375 141 471 445 178 492 547 227 500 2484 1396 513 708 2153 830 855 2897 1151 1037 731 242 95 55 255 102 73 260 104 96 734 57 22 1 65 26 1 72 30 1 757 1145 478 571 1124 480 585 1122 489 593 759 1144 457 30 1289 520 35 1451 589 42 760 2207 925 255 2684 1149 273 3247 1402 294 761 1570 672 171 1830 802 182 2066 914 196 762 1882 763 306 2270 947 323 2687 1137 341 763 1131 478 40 1280 555 44 1512 665 48

Appendix C, Page 212 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 764 738 312 424 753 326 458 773 340 498 765 1002 429 187 1167 512 194 1315 582 202 766 2284 978 734 2570 1126 777 2753 1217 827 767 769 325 586 875 379 614 954 417 643 768 1059 475 470 1189 552 497 1301 619 529 769 2096 916 1313 2384 1080 1361 2657 1237 1407 770 1760 647 1477 2019 776 1556 2280 911 1640 771 282 127 13 327 153 22 374 179 35 772 1362 565 874 1403 595 963 1453 631 1075 773 828 344 740 821 345 758 817 348 766 774 910 307 1346 916 311 1383 936 319 1406 775 1718 733 18 1696 737 24 1702 754 29 776 873 312 12 917 349 15 973 391 15 Inver Grove City Heights Updates 414 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 417 0 0 400 0 0 400 0 0 400 439 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 441 1,075 540 870 1,100 560 900 1,166 574 982 442 353 144 4 353 144 4 353 144 5 443 550 275 80 550 275 90 550 275 95 448 350 175 500 350 175 506 356 178 512 449 29 10 450 29 10 490 29 10 570 450 2,817 1,162 1,500 2,821 1,164 1,527 2,825 1,165 1,553 451 490 200 100 1,134 616 150 1,777 1,032 217 452 900 343 100 927 350 100 954 356 100 453 225 123 125 225 123 200 225 123 341 454 1,180 543 630 1,190 547 650 1,200 552 681 455 320 149 200 346 155 230 372 161 270 456 1,850 871 1,400 1,867 877 1,450 1,885 883 1,573 457 1,500 534 175 1,520 540 175 1,540 546 175 458 634 234 125 643 238 130 653 242 135 459 715 271 305 728 277 325 741 283 347 460 2,400 925 30 2,435 925 30 2,469 925 30 461 2,230 875 190 2,294 875 194 2,311 875 196 462 2,000 798 800 2,075 811 814 2,149 824 828 463 2,450 1,001 53 2,507 1,005 53 2,564 1,008 53 464 1,900 800 195 1,892 857 198 1,883 914 200 465 8 5 408 8 5 440 8 5 483 466 286 131 460 286 131 460 286 131 460 467 1,838 776 180 1,838 776 195 1,838 776 212 468 545 182 18 545 182 18 545 182 18 469 779 279 1 779 279 1 779 279 1 470 600 250 119 1,334 707 140 2,068 1,164 181 471 600 250 170 1,370 748 200 2,140 1,246 335 472 52 20 20 69 27 200 86 34 397 489 600 232 40 613 236 40 625 239 40 490 550 229 50 820 341 85 1,090 454 120 491 800 336 150 1,113 455 226 1,426 573 301 492 1,100 425 75 1,751 756 125 2,402 1,086 175 493 1,200 625 45 1,434 642 47 1,668 659 49 494 14 6 300 21 8 307 28 11 314 495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 509 994 400 25 994 400 38 994 400 52 510 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 511 1,200 450 175 1,597 530 240 1,994 610 309 512 110 44 5 135 44 6 160 45 6 513 750 289 200 821 296 286 893 303 380 514 550 212 540 591 218 545 632 223 550 515 750 283 15 892 295 15 1,035 310 15 724 2 1 15 2 1 15 2 1 15

Appendix C, Page 213 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 725 2 2 157 2 2 157 2 2 325 City Lakeville Updates 647 1 47 16 130 51 18 172 55 20 220 655 2 289 86 87 279 85 86 270 84 86 681 3 7 3 189 6 3 260 6 3 343 681 4 112 45 202 119 50 228 125 55 259 638 5 60 25 4 181 65 7 285 102 10 639 6 0 0 84 0 0 145 0 0 210 684 7 182 88 0 561 238 0 888 377 0 642 8 0 0 38 0 0 57 0 0 77 662 9 6 2 255 6 2 266 6 2 279 647 10 196 69 6 210 74 10 222 80 14 663 11 181 68 0 192 70 0 202 71 0 652 12 450 156 51 443 154 51 436 152 51 659 13 592 193 0 592 196 0 592 199 0 659 14 652 213 0 651 216 0 650 219 0 647 15 1,024 359 32 1,106 391 55 1,176 421 78 653 16 1,697 534 78 1,860 583 78 2,001 628 78 646 17 0 0 55 0 0 55 0 0 55 638 18 545 224 2 587 223 3 623 223 4 646 19 601 198 9 574 197 15 551 197 21 638 20 143 59 6 442 158 11 700 250 16 646 21 185 61 2 177 61 4 170 61 6 657 22 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 3 657 23 491 145 3 465 142 6 442 139 8 659 24 5 2 107 5 2 108 5 2 110 646 25 857 282 13 818 281 22 785 281 31 663 26 581 220 0 615 224 0 644 228 0 663 27 534 202 321 570 208 322 600 213 322 583 28 516 212 99 565 212 151 608 211 208 661 29 160 58 12 199 69 18 232 79 25 656 30 608 183 7 588 181 12 570 179 16 656 31 581 175 6 561 173 11 544 171 15 655 32 293 87 0 282 86 0 273 86 0 655 33 259 77 0 250 76 0 242 76 0 655 34 744 221 22 718 219 22 696 218 22 655 35 232 69 1 224 68 1 217 68 1 661 36 492 178 76 606 209 96 705 239 117 650 37 0 0 32 0 0 37 0 0 43 650 38 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 650 39 249 90 19 250 88 24 250 87 30 650 40 466 168 7 466 165 12 467 162 17 649 41 441 147 3 448 152 4 454 158 4 649 42 178 59 0 181 62 1 183 64 1 649 43 352 118 9 366 125 9 378 131 10 656 44 176 53 2 170 52 4 165 52 5 650 45 563 203 29 563 199 36 563 196 42 650 46 358 129 5 359 127 9 359 125 13 662 47 605 212 121 785 270 128 940 323 135 649 48 561 187 2 569 194 3 576 200 4 662 49 0 0 149 0 0 168 0 0 190 663 50 271 103 56 284 104 62 295 104 68 660 51 0 0 107 0 0 108 0 0 109 656 52 0 0 38 0 0 38 0 0 39 648 53 1,062 311 24 851 273 34 668 239 45 660 54 15 6 389 16 6 391 17 6 392 660 55 0 0 234 0 0 230 0 0 227 660 56 471 179 25 500 178 25 525 177 25 660 57 374 142 5 397 141 3 417 141 2 650 58 0 0 97 0 0 98 0 0 98 648 59 898 263 14 729 235 22 583 208 30

Appendix C, Page 214 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 651 60 417 145 0 412 143 0 408 141 0 651 61 447 155 108 442 153 108 438 152 108 651 62 269 93 43 266 92 53 264 91 63 659 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 659 64 447 146 49 446 148 49 446 150 49 637 65 473 192 8 1,374 492 14 2,153 769 19 659 66 1,078 351 8 1,079 358 6 1,079 364 5 657 67 2 1 225 2 1 217 2 1 207 657 68 990 293 6 941 287 10 898 282 14 657 69 461 137 3 438 134 5 418 131 7 652 70 367 127 0 361 126 0 356 124 0 654 71 1,475 468 21 1,470 464 20 1,466 460 19 659 72 734 239 126 733 243 126 732 247 125 647 73 591 207 228 635 225 251 674 241 276 646 74 287 94 6 274 94 9 263 94 13 663 75 243 92 0 255 93 0 266 94 0 663 76 546 207 0 576 210 0 602 213 0 663 77 15 6 115 16 6 119 16 6 126 659 78 155 50 66 157 52 66 158 53 66 646 79 421 139 6 402 138 10 386 138 15 659 80 652 213 192 652 216 192 652 220 191 657 81 399 118 3 379 116 5 362 114 6 659 82 234 76 0 234 78 0 234 79 0 646 83 694 234 16 817 284 27 924 330 39 652 84 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 653 85 0 0 67 0 0 66 0 0 64 647 86 795 279 26 860 304 44 917 328 63 664 87 423 174 504 556 202 497 670 228 490 665 88 119 39 363 122 41 359 125 42 355 665 89 299 97 0 298 99 0 297 100 0 665 90 362 118 0 360 119 0 359 121 0 658 91 1,147 327 8 1,146 344 8 1,145 360 8 684 92 213 92 61 514 215 104 774 329 151 658 93 715 204 121 716 215 121 717 225 121 653 94 598 189 0 663 208 0 720 226 0 683 95 27 13 78 72 31 102 110 49 131 664 96 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 663 97 146 55 8 153 56 9 159 56 10 683 98 359 180 3 1,098 484 5 1,736 765 7 665 99 346 112 0 345 114 0 344 116 0 646 100 493 175 14 810 285 25 1,084 388 36 663 101 799 302 0 835 304 0 866 307 0 683 102 17 8 79 49 22 79 77 34 80 682 103 93 47 0 282 124 0 445 196 0 665 104 279 91 5 280 93 5 280 94 5 663 105 563 213 34 589 215 32 611 216 29 664 106 164 67 424 247 88 422 318 108 421 664 107 232 94 106 415 146 102 574 195 98 665 108 831 270 38 830 275 19 828 279 0 658 109 55 16 182 54 16 183 54 17 183 658 110 39 11 121 46 14 127 52 16 130 663 111 141 53 0 148 54 0 154 54 0 683 112 71 36 0 217 96 0 344 152 0 669 113 422 127 45 518 171 45 601 211 44 673 114 106 41 1 284 97 2 438 148 4 669 115 74 23 0 115 39 0 150 53 0 673 116 76 29 1 184 63 1 277 94 2 669 117 658 195 18 762 249 20 852 299 22 666 118 1 1 51 2 1 53 3 1 55 682 119 128 63 0 355 157 0 551 243 0 682 120 84 42 2 247 109 2 388 171 1 683 121 218 107 0 635 280 0 996 439 0

Appendix C, Page 215 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 683 122 117 57 0 336 148 0 525 231 0 666 123 253 107 4 389 143 6 507 177 9 673 124 15 6 0 35 12 0 53 18 0 669 125 118 35 0 135 44 0 149 52 0 686 126 414 188 2 491 218 3 558 245 5 685 127 149 74 0 431 194 0 675 304 0 681 128 179 76 13 257 111 13 325 143 13 686 129 26 13 0 78 34 0 123 54 0 669 130 206 60 0 224 73 0 241 84 0 670 131 687 236 0 715 248 0 739 259 0 668 132 358 105 12 374 121 11 388 136 11 667 133 164 69 321 286 105 339 392 138 358 686 134 60 28 0 114 50 0 161 71 0 685 135 151 75 0 433 195 0 677 305 0 673 136 93 35 7 243 83 8 373 126 9 673 137 65 25 1 178 60 2 275 93 2 673 138 26 10 0 80 27 1 127 43 1 686 139 136 63 7 191 85 12 239 105 17 668 140 41 12 0 48 16 0 54 19 0 681 141 447 180 471 486 206 470 521 229 469 670 142 8 3 12 8 3 20 8 3 28 644 143 100 48 55 308 128 95 488 203 135 686 144 89 41 2 122 54 4 152 67 6 686 145 43 19 24 43 19 25 44 19 26 673 146 112 43 1 260 89 2 387 131 3 673 147 74 29 9 218 74 10 342 116 11 673 148 16 6 2 50 17 3 79 27 5 687 149 659 263 356 641 261 379 626 260 402 689 150 114 51 23 293 121 23 448 185 24 688 151 231 90 271 223 89 279 215 88 287 680 152 277 83 45 267 84 57 259 85 69 680 153 298 90 8 287 90 13 278 91 18 680 154 17 5 104 16 5 104 16 5 105 687 155 383 153 2 373 152 2 364 151 2 677 156 1,122 341 0 1,088 344 0 1,060 346 0 677 157 458 140 0 445 140 0 433 141 0 677 158 135 41 444 132 42 491 129 42 541 677 159 0 0 74 0 0 77 0 0 80 674 160 0 0 249 0 0 248 0 0 245 688 161 620 242 411 597 238 432 577 235 453 689 162 208 92 3 521 215 4 792 328 5 644 163 671 247 89 945 373 151 1,182 490 215 688 164 771 301 532 744 297 556 720 293 580 674 165 213 72 131 213 72 224 212 72 319 680 166 507 153 12 490 154 21 475 155 29 674 167 0 0 231 0 0 235 0 0 237 680 168 128 38 3 123 39 5 120 39 7 687 169 527 210 2 513 209 2 501 208 2 677 170 4 1 547 4 1 670 4 1 794 680 171 793 239 18 766 241 32 742 242 45 689 172 40 17 13 77 31 15 108 45 17 678 173 6 2 167 7 2 257 8 2 349 644 174 0 0 50 0 0 82 0 0 118 691 175 0 0 362 0 0 398 0 0 438 691 176 177 67 402 173 66 405 169 66 409 692 177 428 149 35 365 134 35 311 120 36 678 178 1 1 46 2 1 47 2 1 47 679 179 1,117 327 63 948 293 79 802 262 94 675 180 63 20 50 60 20 87 59 20 124 675 181 33 11 48 32 11 65 31 11 84 676 182 0 0 102 0 0 148 0 0 199 676 183 0 0 36 0 0 36 0 0 36

Appendix C, Page 216 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 691 184 0 0 632 0 0 675 0 0 720 676 185 0 0 108 0 0 151 0 0 194 690 186 0 0 615 0 0 631 0 0 649 690 187 0 0 27 0 0 29 0 0 30 642 188 31 12 76 14 6 127 0 0 178 692 189 254 88 88 212 78 92 176 68 96 693 190 0 0 925 0 0 950 0 0 977 693 191 0 0 720 0 0 743 0 0 767 676 192 0 0 95 0 0 164 0 0 234 676 193 0 0 106 0 0 182 0 0 259 676 194 0 0 99 0 0 171 0 0 243 693 195 0 0 338 0 0 347 0 0 356 676 196 22 9 160 27 9 193 31 9 227 693 197 0 0 526 0 0 547 0 0 569 638 198 86 35 3 215 78 5 326 117 7 638 199 492 202 1 530 202 2 563 201 3 637 200 167 64 0 173 64 0 178 64 0 686 201 126 57 14 127 57 17 128 56 21 644 202 99 47 105 304 126 144 482 200 184 637 203 114 46 63 314 113 95 488 174 131 637 204 187 72 0 194 72 0 201 72 0 637 205 247 95 7 257 95 10 265 95 12 637 206 282 108 0 293 108 0 302 108 0 655 207 0 0 95 0 0 93 0 0 90 652 208 39 13 41 38 13 49 37 13 57 651 209 161 56 0 159 55 0 158 55 0 652 210 90 31 0 88 31 0 87 30 0 670 211 174 60 0 179 62 0 184 64 0 653 212 675 213 0 743 233 0 801 252 0 653 213 398 125 9 436 137 9 470 147 9 645 214 165 56 42 197 70 73 224 83 104 647 215 389 136 11 418 148 20 443 159 28 639 216 610 183 44 611 183 76 611 182 110 638 217 68 28 3 210 75 5 333 119 8 685 218 140 72 0 424 191 0 668 301 0 672 219 829 281 26 974 321 42 1,098 359 58 670 220 44 15 58 45 16 57 47 16 56 671 221 566 225 92 608 226 93 644 226 94 672 222 336 118 284 613 201 320 852 279 357 637 223 90 35 52 93 34 58 96 34 64 666 224 413 175 5 613 226 8 785 274 12 696 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City Lilydale Updates 396 384 227 322 384 227 344 380 227 365 401 625 391 186 619 391 203 611 391 220 402 51 32 0 49 32 0 50 32 0 403 80 50 12 78 50 13 79 50 15 Council Mendota data 402 607 281 383 652 307 394 668 325 390 411 1094 457 2664 1090 456 2943 1089 456 3163 Council Mendota Heights data 396 374 171 323 352 166 343 396 203 365 397 1465 563 334 1452 572 412 1443 580 478 398 338 131 138 334 132 145 332 134 148 399 868 335 52 860 341 55 856 346 57 400 574 221 86 577 225 112 583 229 139 401 856 526 185 790 492 204 679 431 220 402 856 526 185 790 492 204 679 431 220 403 607 281 383 652 307 394 668 325 390

Appendix C, Page 217 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 404 607 281 383 652 307 394 668 325 390 405 815 380 80 828 392 81 822 392 80 406 835 380 95 842 389 96 848 395 92 407 369 142 12 417 161 15 472 184 17 408 207 84 2 208 85 3 210 85 4 409 721 290 550 717 289 575 716 288 576 410 375 141 33 381 144 39 388 148 46 411 13 5 1084 14 5 1139 14 5 1135 412 3 1 5761 3 1 5965 3 1 5895 413 1094 457 2664 1090 456 2943 1089 456 3163 414 592 210 897 606 213 934 620 218 933 City Mendota Heights Updates 396 380 200 360 397 1370 560 480 398 320 130 150 399 810 330 60 400 550 220 140 402 650 320 380 403 780 380 80 404 800 380 100 405 470 180 20 406 200 80 0 407 680 280 580 408 370 140 50 409 10 0 1140 410 0 0 5900 411 1040 440 3160 412 590 210 930 413 1270 540 720 414 1640 700 90 Council Rosemount data 519 239 86 39 257 94 47 289 107 59 606 1628 575 86 1688 595 96 1774 623 107 620 1885 673 250 1820 666 322 1796 667 383 621 2423 868 90 2399 873 95 2423 888 98 622 1685 608 193 1696 627 209 1742 654 218 623 719 253 27 1103 396 30 1499 541 31 624 466 166 2 1510 546 2 3127 1135 2 625 295 101 79 1013 362 244 2136 772 504 626 2375 844 196 3249 1175 228 3872 1406 254 627 1336 475 61 1624 587 92 1627 591 135 628 1445 514 14 1969 712 17 2335 848 18 629 1007 358 6 1284 464 8 1389 504 11 630 771 274 382 913 331 415 890 323 422 631 1975 700 515 1906 691 575 1879 691 614 632 1996 710 629 2515 909 678 2673 970 677 633 2780 1004 340 2687 994 370 2657 998 386 634 523 193 768 506 192 824 497 193 846 635 2126 785 533 2050 778 561 2009 781 562 636 1954 720 50 1885 714 53 1847 716 53 721 0 0 38 1 0 40 3 1 40 722 11 4 502 12 4 640 13 4 798 723 41 17 1128 43 18 1266 44 18 1372 724 41 16 2467 39 16 2540 40 16 2468 726 29 9 539 28 9 586 27 9 596 727 13 4 1224 12 4 1553 12 4 1939 728 803 295 228 2275 833 520 4352 1586 1046 City Rosemount Updates 519 1 224 83 0

Appendix C, Page 218 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 519 2 65 24 30 620 3 321 119 0 620 4 355 132 0 620 5 90 33 80 620 6 180 67 0 620 7 339 126 0 620 8 326 121 77 620 9 183 68 0 621 10 227 83 0 621 11 882 323 0 621 12 543 199 0 621 13 773 283 0 622 14 63 24 0 622 15 74 28 0 622 16 99 37 0 622 17 213 80 0 622 18 33 12 0 622 19 637 240 0 622 20 348 131 0 622 21 527 198 0 623 22 213 77 0 623 23 227 82 0 623 24 91 33 0 623 25 416 150 14 624 26 414 150 2 624 27 400 145 0 624 28 886 321 0 624 29 1038 376 0 625 30 3 1 0 625 31 89 32 0 625 32 2285 825 200 625 33 0 0 20 626 34 1642 597 110 626 35 894 325 218 627 36 176 64 0 627 37 228 83 0 627 38 404 147 0 627 39 116 42 31 628 40 275 100 16 628 41 495 180 0 628 42 817 297 0 629 43 1389 504 11 630 44 890 323 422 631 45 147 54 0 631 46 691 254 240 631 47 310 114 0 631 48 261 96 0 631 49 566 208 374 631 50 177 65 0 632 51 638 231 345 632 52 676 245 75 632 53 254 92 0 632 54 522 189 50 632 55 243 88 147 632 56 345 125 223 633 57 295 111 140 633 58 851 320 44 633 59 250 94 0 633 60 423 159 0 633 61 160 60 90 633 62 364 137 0 633 63 460 173 180

Appendix C, Page 219 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 634 64 186 72 716 634 65 439 170 130 635 66 0 0 280 635 67 0 0 282 635 68 519 202 0 635 69 293 114 0 635 70 411 160 0 635 71 208 81 0 635 72 357 139 0 635 73 216 84 0 636 74 366 142 0 636 75 307 119 0 636 76 279 108 0 636 77 511 198 0 636 78 384 149 0 722 79 0 0 0 722 80 0 0 0 722 81 0 0 250 722 82 0 0 200 722 83 0 0 330 722 84 0 0 150 723 85 0 0 963 723 86 0 0 0 723 87 24 10 350 723 88 19 8 25 723 89 0 0 0 724 90 0 0 2463 724 91 40 16 255 726 92 27 9 596 727 93 0 0 787 727 94 0 0 900 727 95 0 0 500 728 96 1096 400 185 728 97 5918 2160 991 Council South St. Paul data 2096 1669 684 187 1736 705 189 1810 737 191 427 397 187 26 399 189 26 413 194 27 428 957 399 5 937 404 5 930 406 5 429 2442 965 535 2399 971 536 2382 971 534 430 10 4 272 10 4 277 9 4 282 431 1591 676 442 1587 695 499 1601 704 569 432 1545 650 601 1598 694 710 1684 734 857 433 1716 728 182 1717 752 217 1741 765 266 434 1129 472 99 1136 490 110 1160 502 123 435 1290 547 4 1295 567 4 1319 579 5 439 2030 866 560 2147 894 567 2274 928 577 442 442 195 5 439 194 5 454 201 5 443 4676 1920 382 4637 1954 375 4681 1983 363 444 3878 1639 1669 3899 1701 1790 3962 1744 1937 445 0 0 4417 0 0 4605 0 0 4826 446 138 61 573 135 61 568 135 60 557 447 2244 923 386 2234 959 375 2246 984 357 448 1848 777 479 1847 783 488 1865 791 499 457 1373 549 196 1347 563 203 1332 574 212 458 591 232 135 581 239 148 580 249 164 460 2250 934 29 2166 926 30 2128 930 31 Council Sunfish Lake data 415 393 143 4 386 152 6 464 200 8 416 503 247 4 524 253 5 539 256 6 417 819 396 1752 891 424 1842 984 461 1948

Appendix C, Page 220 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 441 1236 520 841 1226 516 861 1240 519 883 450 2700 1168 1432 2660 1159 1465 2658 1166 1501 471 732 266 196 1849 712 344 3032 1210 618 City Sunfish Lake Updates 415 389 141 4 373 147 6 471 151 49 6 147 53 4 City West St. Paul Updates 416 503 247 7 524 253 7 538 256 7 417 819 396 1290 872 447 1300 1075 477 1330 418 835 406 1098 870 426 1098 950 448 1135 419 40 20 48 44 21 48 48 23 48 420 827 378 34 864 401 34 864 401 34 421 1569 716 852 1569 714 919 1569 714 919 422 887 405 332 924 430 332 924 430 369 423 1402 628 200 1458 658 200 1458 685 228 424 1153 523 131 1180 523 131 1235 556 131 425 527 238 584 645 282 870 822 282 870 426 1521 703 504 1518 702 504 1788 812 550 427 397 187 29 400 189 29 414 194 29 436 150 65 0 157 66 0 163 67 0 437 65 31 350 477 140 350 682 295 507 438 3 2 1490 5 2 1525 9 4 1525 439 2036 866 476 2145 866 476 2145 866 476 440 1232 595 308 1232 595 308 1323 595 308 2091 1532 621 183 1580 648 183 1605 684 234 2092 1508 616 111 1551 642 111 1560 642 111 2094 1094 447 190 1116 465 190 1116 465 205 2095 1082 447 115 1082 447 115 1104 484 215 2096 1620 664 69 1688 686 69 1764 718 69 City Castle Rock Twp. Updates 697 83 33 34 82 33 33 80 33 32 698 263 104 143 259 104 138 254 104 132 709 194 76 59 192 76 56 189 76 53 710 310 122 25 306 123 38 302 123 50 711 466 183 97 459 183 94 451 183 90 741 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 City Coates Updates 723 28 12 35 28 12 35 28 12 35 728 142 58 73 142 58 70 142 58 70 738 12 15 15 City Douglas Twp. Updates 750 240 92 23 238 96 24 232 99 27 751 139 53 0 144 58 0 150 64 0 752 235 90 38 240 97 38 246 105 42 753 116 44 59 119 48 58 122 52 61 City Empire Twp. Updates 640 285 99 4 383 139 4 489 182 4 712 166 58 37 166 61 43 193 72 48 713 106 38 29 105 40 41 123 47 56 714 90 31 1 217 79 6 410 153 16 715 2235 775 67 2584 939 71 2729 1018 76 716 25 9 71 30 11 73 34 13 73 717 123 43 81 290 105 85 542 202 86 718 57 20 0 122 44 0 219 81 0 719 71 24 8 78 27 14 76 27 18 720 12 4 3 12 4 3 12 4 4

Appendix C, Page 221 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 721 0 0 38 1 0 40 3 1 40 City Eureka Township Updates 676 20 10 10 20 10 10 30 10 10 694 120 40 20 130 60 20 130 60 20 695 430 170 270 460 180 270 470 200 270 696 100 40 30 110 40 30 120 50 30 699 190 70 20 210 80 20 230 100 20 700 130 50 80 150 60 80 170 70 80 701 460 180 30 490 200 30 520 210 30 City Greenvale Twp. Updates 702 293 109 37 304 122 48 293 124 61 703 307 114 71 323 129 93 317 134 119 704 210 78 43 223 89 59 220 93 79 City Hampton City Updates 739 320 120 0 330 130 0 340 140 0 740 540 200 120 550 220 150 570 240 160 747 350 130 120 360 140 130 370 160 130 City Hampton Twp. Updates 737 11 4 4 11 5 5 11 5 4 738 14 5 0 14 6 0 14 6 0 739 141 54 2 146 58 2 151 63 2 740 25 10 29 26 11 31 28 12 29 741 143 54 6 153 61 7 168 70 8 745 92 35 0 101 40 0 117 49 0 746 261 101 35 282 113 40 308 128 42 747 251 97 13 267 107 15 284 118 14 City Marshan Twp. Updates 734 57 22 1 65 26 1 72 30 1 749 350 133 33 394 154 49 440 176 69 754 237 94 136 226 94 156 215 94 168 757 142 56 9 134 56 10 126 55 11 758 117 45 40 130 51 58 142 58 80 759 159 60 7 177 69 11 195 78 17 775 78 31 4 74 30 5 70 30 5 City Miesville Updates 752 75 32 57 75 32 61 75 32 62 753 65 28 63 65 28 69 65 28 68 City New Trier Updates 746 38 15 10 35 15 12 35 15 13 747 92 35 40 85 35 48 85 35 47 City Nininger Twp. Updates 729 199 84 63 200 86 70 195 85 74 730 126 50 7 133 53 8 135 54 10 731 242 95 55 255 102 73 260 104 96 732 39 15 19 44 18 24 47 19 31 733 115 49 1 118 51 1 115 50 1 763 15 6 0 14 6 0 14 6 0 764 158 67 0 158 68 0 154 67 0 770 36 14 16 39 15 25 40 16 38

City Randolph Updates 742 437 179 130 437 179 130 417 179 130

Appendix C, Page 222 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040

Metro TAZ City TAZ 2020 Pop. 2020 HH 2020 Jobs 2030 Pop. 2030 HH 2030 Jobs 2040 Pop. 2040 HH 2040 Jobs 743 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 City Randolph Twp. Updates 742 34 13 22 35 15 22 37 15 22 743 404 159 70 392 162 71 387 160 71 744 211 82 68 212 87 68 216 89 67 746 39 15 0 39 16 0 40 16 0 City Ravenna Twp. Updates 755 631 226 20 643 245 23 653 262 23 756 856 302 18 869 326 22 875 346 22 776 873 312 12 917 349 15 973 391 15 Council Sciota Township data 706 265 96 81 273 102 104 284 112 118 707 192 69 52 195 74 73 203 82 86 708 297 115 397 303 122 427 304 124 451 City Vermillion City Updates 736 254 101 39 260 101 50 260 107 58 737 156 59 111 160 59 130 160 63 142 City Vermillion Twp. Updates 735 209 78 55 215 83 70 221 89 70 736 306 114 45 315 122 48 325 130 50 737 126 47 26 130 50 25 134 54 23 738 384 143 12 390 151 15 394 158 15 748 186 69 2 190 74 2 195 78 2 City Waterford Twp. Updates 705 197 79 370 200 82 375 199 82 385 706 60 24 37 62 25 37 62 25 38 707 26 10 0 26 11 0 26 11 0 708 218 87 343 223 92 347 223 92 356

Appendix C, Page 223